BX  5178  .G58  1853 
Goode,  William,  1801-1868. 
A  vindication  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/vindicationofdocOOgood 


A  VINDICATION 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


I.  A  GENERAL  REVIEW  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 

II.  A  REPLY  TO  ARCHDEACON  CIIURTON  AND  CHANCELLOR 
IIARINGTON.  (Second  Edition.) 

III.  A  REPLY  TO  THE  BISHOP  OF  EXETER'S  LETTER  TO  THE 
ARCHDEACON  OF  TOTNES.  (Third  Edition.) 


OX  THE  VALIDITY  OF 
THE  ORDERS  OF  THE  SCOTCH  AND  FOREIGN 
NON-EPISCOPAL  CHURCHES: 


IN  THREE  PAMPHLETS  ON  THE  SUBJECT. 


CONTAINING 


BY 


W.  GOODE,  M.A.,  F.S.A. 


Rector  of  AWtalhws  Uk  Gnat  and  Less,  London. 


NEW  YORK: 
A.  D.  F.  RANDOLPH,  683  BROADWAY. 
1853. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  three  following  pamphlets  have  been  called  forth,  as  their 
contents  will  show,  by  a  recent  controversy  in  the  Church  of 
England  respecting  the  validity  of  the  Orders  of  the  ministers  of 
the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches.  They  are  now  put  together 
in  the  hope  that  they  will  supply  the  reader  with  sufficient  mate- 
rials to  enable  him  to  judge  of  the  genuine  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  England  on  the  subject  of  a  Non-Episcopal  ministry;  especially 
with  regard  to  those  Foreign  Protestant  Churches  that  were  placed 
in  less  happy  circumstances  than  our  own  Church  in  the  struggle 
for  their  emancipation  from  the  yoke  of  Popery.  A  semi-Popish 
party — the  seeds  of  which  have  been  perpetuated  even  from  the 
times  of  the  Reformation,  and  have  ever  since,  at  fitting  opportu- 
nities, germinated  with  more  or  less  luxuriance  and  vigor — has 
recently  sprung  up  in  our  Church,  which  would  fain  limit  the 
ministry  of  the  Christian  Church  to  those  who  have  been  ordained 
by  Bishops  episcopally  consecrated,  and  deriving  their  episcopal 
commission  through  an  uninterrupted  line  of  episcopally  conse- 
crated bishops  from  the  Apostles,  denying  to  all  others  the  power 
both  of  preaching  and  administering  the  sacraments ;  and  which 
maintains,  that  the  Church  of  Christ,  properly  speaking,  consists 
only  of  those  who  are  in  communion  with  ministers  so  ordained. 
And,  extraordinary  as  it  must  appear  to  those  who  are  at  all 
acquainted  with  the  early  history  of  our  Reformed  Church,  it  is 
farther  asserted  by  this  party  that  such  is  the  doctrine  of  our 
Church. 

It  may  be  fairly  supposed  that,  in  the  various  publications  to 
which  a  reply  is  given  in  the  following  pages,  all  the  arguments 
that  can  with  any  semblance  of  reason  be  adduced  to  prove  such  a 
theory  to  be  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  have  been  brought  forward ; 
and,  consequently,  that  the  reader  may  here  see  this  question  fully 
discussed,  and  the  arguments  on  both  sides  carefully  stated  and 
thoroughly  sifted. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  our  Church  has  not,  in  her  Articles, 
spoken  more  clearly  and  definitely  on  the  point;  though  the  fact 
that  she  has  not  done  so  entirely  negatives  the  idea  of  her  holding 
the  "High-Church"  view.  No  doubt,  in  the  case  of  a  national 
Church,  it  is  well  that  room  should  be  given  for  some  difference  of 
opinion.  But  unfortunately  the  tendency  in  all  independent  bodies 
of  men,  and  not  the  least  in  those  of  an  ecclesiastical  kind,  is,  to 


iv 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


magnify  their  own  importance,  and  stretch  to  the  utmost  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  their  order.  The  consequence  is,  that,  in  every 
established  Church,  the  stream  of  opinion  among  the  Clergy  will, 
before  long,  however  it  may  have  commenced,  run  in  the  direction 
of  the  exclusive  principles  of  what  is  called  <;  High-Church " 
doctrine.  And  this,  we  may  observe  by  the  way,  shows  the 
importance  of  a  State  not  allowing  such  a  body  to  have,  unneces- 
sarily, any  opportunities  of  tampering  with  the  code  of  doctrine 
originally  laid  down  at  its  establishment. 

The  subject  is  one  of  no  little  importance.  It  is  no  light  matter 
to  excommunicate  from  the  Church  of  Christ  by  far  the  largest 
portion  of  its  professed  Protestant  members.  And  they  who  do 
so  should  take  good  heed  that  they  have  the  authority  of  its  great 
Head,  for  fulminating  such  a  sentence  against  those  who,  to  all 
appearance,  are  equally  devoted  followers  of  Him  as  those  who  are 
pronouncing  an  anathema  against  them. 

The  author  of  the  following  pages  is  as  little  inclined  as  ever  to 
give  up  the  doctrine  that  the  Episcopal  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment was  of  Apostolical  institution  ;  but  he  is  equally  indisposed 
to  maintain  that  it  is  indispensable  to  the  existence  of  a  valid 
Christian  ministry  and  Christian  Church  ;  still  less,  that  the  Christ- 
ian ministry  can  only  be  perpetuated  by  bishops  episcopally 
consecrated  in  an  uninterrupted  line  from  the  Apostles.  Had  it 
been  so,  the  Church  would  not,  he  believes,  have  been  left  without 
some  definite  precept  to  that  effect  in  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and 
certainly,  in  the  absence  of  such  a  precept,  no  man,  or  body  of 
men,  has  a  right  to  lay  down  such  a  rule.  And  however  strong 
may  be  the  claims  of  Episcopacy,  both  from  its  superior  efficiency, 
cseteris  paribus,  and  from  its  Apostolical  institution,  he  believes 
that  it  is  entirely  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures  to  deny  the  validity  of  every  ministry  but  that  which 
is  derived  from  the  Episcopal  succession. 

In  the  following  pages,  however,  the  sole  question  is  as  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  on  the  subject;  and  he  trusts 
he  has  been  enabled  to  prove  that  her  genuine  doctrine  is  very 
different  from  that  exclusive  view  that  has  lately  been  so  vehemently 
contended  for  by  some  of  her  members.  That  there  may  be  many 
cases  in  which  ministerial  orders  may  be  perfectly  valid,  though  in 
our  view  somewhat  irregular,  and  ecclesiastical  communities  be  true 
Churches,  in  real  communion  with  Christ,  though  not  constituted 
in  the  best  way,  is,  he  hopes,  here  clearly  shown  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  our  Church  ;  and  the  notion  that  such  communities  and  their 
ministers  are  outcasts  from  the  family  of  God,  proved  to  be  entirely 
opposed  both  to  her  creed  and  practice. 

W.  G. 


London,  Oct.  21,  1852. 


THE  DOCTRINE 

OF 

THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

ON 

NON-EPISCOPAL  ORDINATIONS: 

OR, 

THE  QUESTION  BETWEEN 

THE  PRIMATE  AND  THE  TEACTARIANS 

FULLY  DISCUSSED. 

Reprinted  from  the  "Christian  Observer"  for  November,  1851. 


NEW  YORK: 
A.  D.  F.  RANDOLPH,  683  BROADWAY. 
1853. 


THE  DOCTRINE 


OF  THE 

CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

ON 

NON-EPISCOPAL  ORDINATIONS,  &c. 


The  Exclusive  Validity  of  Episcopal  Ordinations  Vindicated. 
A  Sermon.  By  Rev.  G.  L.  Bibek,  LL.D.,  Perp.  Curate  of 
Roehampton.    London :  Rivington. 

Continuation  of  Ditto  ;  in  Two  Sermons.    By  the  same. 

A  Feiv  Words  on  the  Correspondence  between  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  and  Mr.  Gawthorn.  By  Rev.  W.  B.  Barter, 
Rector  of  Highclere,  &c.    London  :  Rivington. 

Our  readers  have  probably  often  viewed  with  interest  the  action 
of  a  sea,  lashed  into  fury  by  a  sudden  tempest,  upon  a  rock 
firmly  imbedded  in  its  bosom.  Beating,  roaring,  foaming,  the 
waves  seem  as  if  the  very  immovability  of  the  obstacle  presented 
to  their  course  had  exasperated  them  to  a  state  of  frenzy.  The 
rock  meanwhile,  with  placid  steadfastness,  remains  utterly  un- 
shaken ;  covered,  it  may  be,  at  times,  with  the  boiling  surge  and 
foam,  but  only  to  reappear  in  undisturbed  repose,  and  quietly 
make  manifest  the  impotency  of  its  assailants. 

We  have  been  irresistibly  reminded  of  such  a  scene  by  what 
has  been  lately  taking  place  in  our  Church.  The  cause  of  truth 
and  sound  Church  of  England  principle  has  been  exposed,  in  the 
person  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  to  a  storm  of  vitupera- 
tion and  invective  such  as  few  but  Tractarians  would  be  willing  to 
raise  against  the  Primate  of  their  Church.  These  worshippers  of 
Episcopacy  and  the  Apostolical  Succession  have  discovered,  ap- 
parently, that  such  only  of  the  "successors  of  the  Apostles"  are 
entitled  to  respect,  as  maintain  their  views,  and  that,  however  in 
theory  it  is  essential  to  hold  "  the  grace  of  the  Apostolical  succes- 
sion," practically  they  for  whom  this  grace  is  claimed  may  be 
treated  as  if  there  was  nothing  of  the  kind. 

Meanwhile  the  Primate,  having  calmly  maintained  his  position, 
and  vindicated  the  genuine  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
has  left  his  assailants  to  fret,  and  fume,  and  rage  to  the  top  of 
their  bent;  not,  doubtless,  without  much  grief  at  seeing  such  a 
display  in  the  bosom  of  our  reformed  Protestant  Church,  but 


4 


without  solicitude  as  to  the  result,  either  for  the  cause  of  truth  or 
of  his  own  character  with  the  public. 

A  certain  Mr.  Gawthorn,  a  befitting  convert  to  Romanism,  re- 
cently took  upon  himself  to  put  into  undisguised  practice  the  prin- 
ciples of  his  Jesuit  instructors  ;  and,  ad  major  em  Dei  gloriam, 
endeavored,  under  a  false  name,  to  draw  the  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury into  a  correspondence  respecting  his  views  on  the  validity 
of  the  Orders  of  the  Foreign  Protestant  Non-Episcopal  Churches, 
conscious  that  a  public  statement  of  his  well-known  sentiments 
would  be  sure  to  excite  the  indignation  of  a  certain  party  lately 
arisen  in  our  Church ;  and  thus  a  burning  torch  would  be  thrown 
into  the  Church  of  England,  which  could  hardly  fail,  he  supposed, 
to  do  some  mischief  there.  The  Primate,  having  nothing  to  con- 
ceal, freely  imparted  his  views  to  his  unknown  correspondent;  but 
not  wishing  to  give  occasion  for  a  public  controversy  on  the  sub- 
ject, marked  his  note  'private.  The  worthy  disciple  of  the  Jesuits 
had  thus  gained  his  end  to  the  utmost  extent  of  his  wishes.  He 
had  obtained  the  desired  expression  of  the  Archbishop's  senti- 
ments, and  the  mark  private  was  an  additional  boon,  that  might 
be  turned  to  considerable  account,  and  pointed  at  as  indicating 
that  his  Grace  did  not  wish  his  views  to  be  known;  though,  to  use 
the  language  of  the  Guardian  itself  (which,  to  do  it  justice,  has 
been  much  more  temperate  on  this  occasion  than  its  brethren 
of  the  same  school),  the  opinion  expressed  in  his  note  was  "  the 
opinion  which  all  the  world  has  for  years  known  him  to  enter- 
tain." (Guardian  for  Sept.  17.) 

The  note  was  of  course  as  soon  as  possible  made  public.  And 
as  it  is  short,  we  must  again  place  it  before  our  readers.  The 
Gawthorn  epistle  we  leave  to  grace  the  annals  of  Jesuitism. 

"  (Private.) 

"Sir:  You  are  far  too  severe  in  your  censure  of  the  Bishop  of  London, 
though  I  wish  that  his  Lordship  had  explained  himself  more  fully.  But  in 
his  original  letter  to  Lord  Cholmondeley,  he  expressly  stated  that  they  could 
not  by  law  minister  in  our  churches,  but  that  every  endeavor  would  be  made 
to  provide  places  where  they  might  celebrate  Divine  worship  according  to 
their  own  form.  I  hardly  imagine  that  there  are  two  Bishops  on  the  Bench, 
or  one  Clergyman  in  fifty  throughout  our  Church,  who  would  deny  the  validity 
of  the  orders  of  those  Pastors  solely  on  account  of  their  wanting  the  imposi- 
tion of  Episcopal  hands  ;  and  I  am  sure  that  you  have  misunderstood  the 
import  of  the  letter  which  occasioned  your  addressing  me,  if  you  suppose 
that  it  implied  any  such  sentiment  in  the  writer's  mind. 

"I  remain,  sir,  your  obedient  and  humble  servant, 

"  W.  Francis,  Esq."  "  J.  B.  CAXTUAR." 

The  immediate  consequence  of  the  publication  of  trfis  note  was 
such  as,  no  doubt,  to  afford  the  accomplished  pupil  of  the  Jesuits 
unmixed  gratification.  The  interests  of  our  Church  have  been 
lately  taken  under  the  special  patronage  of  certain  agitating 
clubs,  called  Church  Unions,  having  the  same  aspect  towards  the 
legally  appointed  authorities  of  our  Church  that  certain  Parisian 
clubs  had  towards  their  appointed  rulers,  resolved  upon  giving 


5 


them,  unsolicited,  the  most  strenuous  assistance  in  the  discharge 
of  their  duties — an  assistance  which  may,  perhaps,  produce  ulti- 
mately the  same  happy  consummation  which  has  followed  the 
labors  of  their  predecessors  in  another  country.  And  still  more 
recently  an  important  ally  has  been  added  to  their  ranks,  in  the 
person  of  one  who  almost  daily  favors  us  with  his  oracular  deci- 
sions on  all  points  of  Ecclesiastical  doctrine,  government,  order, 
and  discipline,  sometimes  to  the  emendation  of  all  historic  records 
we  ever  met  with,  and  settles  without  difficulty,  and  to  the  infinite 
satisfaction  of  himself  and  all  who  agree  with  him,  all  disputed 
points.  If  our  Primates  would  only  establish  an  electric  telegraph 
between  their  residences  and  the  Strand,  they  might  save  them- 
selves all  farther  trouble  on  Ecclesiastical  matters.  D.  C.  L.  and 
his  fellow-laborers  are  ready  to  teach  them  the  true  and  genuine 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  on  all  points  whatsoever,  at 
the  shortest  notice.  And  this,  not  as  speaking  their  own  senti- 
ments merely,  but  those  of  everybody,  always,  everywhere,  ac- 
cording to  the  venerable  Canon  of  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins,  worthy 
of  any  notice,  including,  of  course,  the  present  generation  of 
English  Churchmen. 

We  confess  that,  sometimes,  when  we  have  been  reading  the 
magniloquent  effusions  of  D.  C.  L.  and  his  coadjutors,  in  their 
various  organs,  in  which  they  address  us  as  the  exclusive  repre- 
sentatives of  orthodoxy  in  our  Church,  and  the  genuine  expounders 
of  the  mind  and  feelings  of  all  the  clergy  worth  being  listened  to, 
we  have  been  strongly  reminded  of  the  three  tailors  of  Tooley 
Street,  who  prefaced  their  lucubrations  with  the  words,  "  We  the 
people  of  England."  But  it  becomes  not  us  to  dive  too  deeply 
into  the  mysterious  recesses  of  the  oracular  abodes  of  these 
"  Catholic"  evangelists,  or  publicly  to  lift  the  veil  under  which 
these  great  unknown  have  chosen  to  shroud  themselves.  D.  C. 
L.,  for  aught  we  know,  may  have  a  million  arguments  for  putting 
himself  forward  as  the  great  instructor  of  the  Church,  and  esta- 
blishing his  super-Primatial  authority  at  332  Strand. 

Such,  however,  being  the  protection  under  which  the  interests 
of  our  Church  have  been  placed,  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that 
such  a  letter  as  that  of  the  Archbishop,  in  favor  of  the  Orders  of 
certain  foreign  non-Episcopal  Churches,  should  be  allowed  to  pass 
without  notice. 

What  !  that  a  set  of  rebellious,  schismatical,  heretical  commu- 
nities such  as  these,  should  be  spoken  of  by  the  Primate  of  the 
Church  of  England  as  having  any  among  them  entitled  to  preach 
the  word  of  God  and  administer  the  sacraments,  to  the  edification 
of  any  soul  among  them  ! — that  a  set  of  persons,  who,  if  ever  they 
do  find  mercy  at  the  hand  of  God,  must  obtain  it  in  a  way  that 
nobody  ever  heard  of,  or  can  conjecture  its  nature — since  it  is  not 
found  in  the  Divine  covenant — should  be  spoken  of  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  as  though  they  really  formed  part  of  Christ's 
Catholic  Church  ! — this  was  intolerable.     To  suppose  that  the 


6 


grace  of  God  could  flow  through  any  other  channel  than  Bishops 
canonically  consecrated,  was  a  notion  stamped  and  sealed  with  the 
brand  of  heresy  by  "Catholic  consent."  And  then,  to  be  a 
Bishop,  and  belong  to  a  Church  having  the  Episcopal  form  of 
church  government,  and  think  that  Divine  grace  was  communi- 
cated to  the  world  by  any  other  medium  than  a  Bishop,  what 
inconsistency,  what  treachery,  as  well  as  heresy  !  And  of  all 
others,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  is  the  exclusive  chan- 
nel of  all  Divine  grace  for  everybody  in  his  Province,  for  he  con- 
secrates all  the  bishops,  the  bishops  ordain  all  the  ministers,  and 
from  the  ministers,  so  ordained,  alone  (Mr.  Keble  would  tell  us*), 
can  we  derive  "sacramental  grace"  and  "mystical  communion 
with  Christ !"  Could  any  words  be  too  strong  to  denounce  such 
impiety  ! 

Such  were  the  outpourings  of  wrath  which  D.  C.  L.  and  his  fel- 
low-laborers in  Church  Unions,  and  newspapers,  and  magazines, 
heaped  upon  the  devoted  head  of  the  Primate.  Anything  like 
proof  that  the  Primate  had  uttered  what  was  contrary  to  the  doc- 
trine of  our  Church,  it  was  far  beneath  the  dignity  of  these  self- 
constituted  authorities  to  offer  ;  or  if  any  was  vouchsafed  by  a 
more  humble  laborer,  it  was  a  sufficient  condescension  to  inform 
the  Primate,  that  when  our  Church  required  its  ministers  to  be 
episcopally  ordained,  it  declared  the  exclusive  validity  of  Episco- 
pal ordination  for  all  churches,  places,  and  times.  Could  it  indeed 
be  doubted,  that  what  "Catholic  consent"  had  established,  what 
everybody,  always,  everywhere,  worth  notice,  had  maintained, 
what  all  the  decently-respectable  divines  of  our  Church  had,  with 
one  voice  contended  for,  was  the  true  doctrine  of  our  Church  ? 
And  that  all  this  was  the  case,  D.  C.  L.,  and  many  other  equally 
infallible  authorities  were  prepared  to  maintain  against  all  comers, 
and  enforce  the  belief  with  all  the  means  which  the  deplorable 
spirit  of  these  liberal  times  might  permit. 

Amidst  the  storm  thus  raised,  and  while  the  assailants  of  the 
Primate — as  if  they  had,  after  all,  some  awkward  misgivings  as  to 
the  strength  of  their  cause — were  endeavoring  to  fortify  it  by  the 
most  gross  misrepresentations  of  the  real  meaning  of  the  note, 
came  a  well-meant  attempt  to  give  the  Archbishop  an  opportunity 
of  authoritatively  disowning  the  views  which  his  unscrupulous 
adversaries  had  been  laboring  to  fasten  upon  him,  which  gave  rise 
to  the  following  correspondence  : — 

"Whitchurch  Canoxicorusi,  Sept.  17,  1851. 
"My  Lord  Archbishop:  Having  seen  in  the  public  journals  a  letter 
addressed  by  your  Grace  to  Mr.  Gawthorn,  and  being  under  the  impression 
that  the  purpose  and  meaning  of  that  communication  have  been  in  some  de- 
gree misunderstood,  I  venture  most  respectfully  to  inquire  of  your  Grace  : 
first,  whether  the  letter  in  question  is  to  be  considered  as  an  official  and 
authoritative  document,  or  as  an  informal  expression  of  private  opinion  ;  and, 
secondly,  whether  it  was  your  Grace's  intention,  in  that  letter,  to  state  that 


*  Pref.  to  Hooker,  p.  Isxvii. 


7 


the  Bishops  and  Clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  generally  are  of  opinion 
that  Episcopal  ordination  is  simply  non-essential  to  the  validity  of  Orders,  in 
which  case  it  might  he  dispensed  with  amongst  ourselves ;  or  whether  your 
Grace  meant  to  include,  in  the  majority  of  which  you  spoke,  those  who  would 
be  reluctant  to  pronounce  positively  on  the  invalidity  of  all  ordinations  to  the 
ministry  performed  in  foreign  parts,  where  Episcopal  ordinations  could  not 
he  ohtained,  though  they  would  not  consent  that  such  ordinations  should  be 
introduced  into  the  Church  of  England,  or  recognized  as  conveying  power 
to  officiate  in  that  Church  ?  —  I  have  the  honor  to  bo,  my  Lord  Archbishop, 
your  very  humble  servant  in  Christ, 

"WILLIAM  PALMER. 
"  His  Grace  the  Lord  Archbishop  of  Canterbury." 


"Addington,  Sept.  19,  1851. 

"  Reverend  Sir :  A  letter  addressed  to  me  in  a  spirit  of  Christian  candor 
would  be  entitled  to  attention,  independently  of  the  advantage  which  it  de- 
rives when  contrasted  with  other  notices  which  have  been  taken  of  the  com- 
munication fraudulently  obtained  from  me  by  Mr.  Gawthorn. 

"In  regard  to  that  communication,  I  take  the  opportunity  of  mentioning, 
that  it  is  not  unusual  for  me  to  receive  inquiries  from  persons  unknown  to 
me  respecting  matters  connected  with  the  Church  ;  to  which  I  consider  my- 
self hound  to  reply,  when  there  appears  no  ground  for  suspecting  the  motive 
of  the  writer.  Mr.  Gawthorn's  letter  came  to  me  as  one  of  these;  and  whether 
concocted  by  himself,  or  with  the  assistance  of  others,  I  cannot  think  that 
it  was  otherwise  than  cleverly  composed,  or  contained  anything  to  excite 
suspicion. 

"  My  answer  was  expressed  in  a  manner  which  I  certainly  should  not  have 
adopted  '  in  an  authoritative  or  official  document,'  or  if  I  had  believed  that  I 
was  writing  any  other  than  a  private  letter.  Still,  inferences  have  been 
drawn  from  it  for  which  it  furnishes  no  ground  whatever.  Otherwise  you 
could  not  ask  me  whether  'it  was  my  intention  to  state  that  I  myself,  or  the 
majority  of  our  Clergy,  look  upon  Episcopal  ordination  as  non-essential  to 
the  validity  of  Orders,  so  that  it  might  be  dispensed  with  among  ourselves,' 
and  so  that  any  others  than  those  episcopally  ordained  could  'have  power  to 
officiate  in  our  Church.'  This  was  no  part  of  Mr.  Gawthorn's  inquiry.  His 
inquiry  was,  whether  in  'my  opinion  or  that  of  the  majority  of  my  brethren, 
these  foreign  clergymen  were  not  truly  pastors  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  but 
were  to  be  considered  as  mere  laymen.'  This  I  thought  equivalent  to  the 
question,  whether  wo  hold  that  no  person,  in  any  country,  or  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, will  be  entitled  to  minister  in  the  Church  of  Christ  except  through 
the  imposition  of  Episcopal  hands. 

"  I  replied  that  I  imagined  this  to  be  as  far  as  possible  from  the  general 
opinion,  either  among  our  bishops  or  clergy.  I  knew  that  neither  our  Articles 
nor  our  Formularies  justified  such  an  opinion.  I  knew  that  many  of  our 
ancient  divines  had  disclaimed  such  an  opinion  ;  and  I  know  that  such  an 
opinion  would  amount  to  declaring  that  no  valid  sacrament  or  other  minis- 
terial act  had  ever  been  performed,  except  under  an  Episcopal  form  of  govern- 
ment. And  therefore  I  could  not  believe,  and  I  still  do  not  believe,  that 
many  of  our  clergy  would  venture  seriously  to  maintain  such  an  opinion. 

"  To  be  convinced  that  Episcopal  government,  and  therefore  that  Episcopal 
ordination,  is  most  agreeable  to  Scripture,  most  in  accordance  with  primitive 
practice,  and  is  in  itself  the  'more  excellent  way,' is  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  judgment  of  Hooker,  that  'the  lineal  descent  of  power  by  apostolical  suc- 
cession is  not,  in  certain  cases,  to  be  urged  absolutely,  and  without  any  pos- 
sible exception.'    (Book  vii.  clause  14.    See  also  Book  iii.  clause  11.) 

"  Unable  as  I  am  to  account  for  the  misrepresentations  to  which  I  have 
been  subjected,  I  am  glad  to  find  so  proper  an  opportunity  of  correcting 
them  as  your  letter  affords. 

"And  I  remain,  Reverend  Sir,  your  faithful  servant, 

" Rev.  William  Palmer."  "J.  B.  CANTUAR." 


8 


We  give  these  letters  that  our  readers  may  have  the  whole  of 
the  case  before  them.  And  we  see  from  them  that  the  Archbishop 
calmly  maintains  his  ground,  and  distinctly  reasserts  his  first 
statement.  Whether  or  not  his  Grace  took  too  favorable  a  view 
of  the  sentiments  of  his  brethren,  we  are  not  disposed  to  inquire ; 
but  whether  his  doctrine  or  that  of  his  assailants  has  the  best 
claim  to  be  considered  the  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
we  shall  presently  endeavor  to  determine,  not  by  assertion,  but 
by  proofs. 

We  must  first  notice,  however,  the  effect  which  the  publication 
of  tli is  letfer  had  upon  the  movement  against  the  Primate,  which 
was  somewhat  remarkable.  It  had  apparently  been  found,  that 
the  furious  onslaught  made  by  D.  C.  L.  and  his  fellow-laborers 
had  fewer  sympathizers  than  was  expected.  Even  the  Guardian, 
though  certainly  not,  as  its  pages  continually  show,  remarkable 
for  its  regard  for  the  reputation  of  the  Primate,  prudently  warned 
its  party  against  following  such  extreme  counsels,  honestly  con- 
fessing, that  from  "the  actual  language"  of  the  note,  could  only 
be  gathered  the  doctrine,  "  that  Episcopal  ordination  is  not  abso- 
lutely essential  to  a  true  Christian  ministry  in  any  sense  of  the 
word  ;"  and  asking,  "  Have  the  gentlemen  who  are  going  to  raise 
an  agitation  on  this  note  cleared  up  their  own  minds  on  this  ques- 
tion ;  so  that  they  will  determinately  say  that  under  no  circum- 
stances whatever  can  any  ordination  deviating  from  the  Episco- 
pal one,  receive  the  Divine  blessing,  and  be  accompanied  with 
grace  ?"  (Sept.  17.)  And  the  Editor  had  previously  intimated 
his  opinion  to  be,  "  that  the  Episcopal  organization  of  the  Church 
is  not  so  essential,  but  that  there  may  be,  though  not  so  com- 
pletely, real  Christian  means  of  grace  and  ministries  without 
it." 

We  hail  the  expression  of  such  sentiments  in  such  a  quarter, 
and  are  at  a  loss  to  understand  what  cause  of  quarrel  a  maintainer 
of  such  views  can  have  found  in  the  Archbishop's  note,  and  regret 
that  party-feeling  should  have  led  him  to  make  the  remarks  in 
which  he  has  indulged.  Well  might  a  certain  Archdeacon,  and 
others  of  the  party,  complain  of  it  as  treason  in  the  camp.  But 
treason  evidently  there  was,  and  consequently  great  risk  of  certain 
threatened  protests  turning  out  to  be  failures.  And  so  this  second 
letter  of  the  Archbishop  was  represented  to  the  public  as  a  retract- 
ation. Yes,  wondering  reader,  in  the  face  of  the  Archbishop's 
express  reiteration  of  his  former  view,  and  declaration  of  his  ad- 
herence to  it,  the  Metropolitan  Church  Union  had  the  courage  to 
put  forth  the  following  statement  : — 

"  At  a  special  meeting  of  the  Committee  of  the  Metropolitan  Church  Union, 
held  on  Friday  the  26th  of  Sept.  1851,  a  letter  from  his  Grace  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  to  the  Kev.  W.  Palmer,  having  been  read,  Resolved,  That  for- 
asmuch as  the  indispensable  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination  to  the  validity 
of  holy  orders  appears  to  this  Committee  to  be  recognized  by  his  Grace  in 
the  above  letter,  no  farther  steps  be  taken  to  procure  signatures  to  the  Pro- 


9 


test  issued  by  this  dfcnmittce,  and  that  the  Petition  to  Convocation  on  this 
subject  now  in  draft  be  dropped." 

And  the  trustworthy  Morning  Chronicle,  under  the  oracular 
guidance  apparently  of  D.  C.  L.,  indulges  itself  in  the  following — • 
we  should  suppose,  perilous — experiment  upon  public  patience  and 
credulity :  — 

"The  Primate  has  clutched,  not  without  evident  relief,  at  the  three  thin 
and  unsubstantial  straws  with  which  Mr.  Palmer  has  had  the  charity  to  offer 
to  conduct  him  out  of  a  very  Serbonian  looking  bog.  In  a  word,  the  impru- 
dent letter  is  for  aril  substantial  purposes,  in  fact — whatever  even  now  is  his 
Grace's  lamentable  misconception  of  the  true  theory  of  ordination — dis- 
avowed and  retracted;  and,  so  far  as  this  goes,  of  course  it  is  a  matter  of 
congratulation.  Everybody,  all  sorts  of  journals,  organs  of  every  class 
[everybody,  always,  everywhere,  so  that  it  must  be  a  '  Catholic'  truth]  agreed 
in  drawing  an  inference  from  the  Archbishop's  letter,  for  which  we  are  now 
assured  'there  is  no  ground  whatever.'  Common  consent  has  for  once,  we 
suppose,  been  wrong." 

We  pause  to  point  out  to  our  readers  the  happy  illustration  this 
writer  has  afforded  us  of  the  real  value  of  the  everybody-always- 
everywhere  argument,  the  true  meaning  of  the  Tractarian  plea  of 
"common  consent." 

We  will  add  but  one  passage  more  from  this  production,  for,  in 
all  seriousness,  it  is  heart-sickening  to  transcribe  such  a  tissue  of 
misrepresentations  and  calumnies  as  are  contained  in  that  single 
article.  "  We  are  not  exaggerating  the  value  of  his  Grace's  last 
letter,  if  we  pronounce  the  retractation  of  his  note  to  Gawthorn  to 
be  inferentially  complete."  And  with  characteristic  self-com- 
placency and  love  of  truth,  the  writer  broadly  intimates,  that  the 
public  are  indebted  to  himself  and  his  fellow-laborers  for  having 
frightened  the  Archbishop  into  taking  such  a  course. 

These  gentlemen  are  apt  disciples  of  their  quondam  leader, 
Mr.  Newman,  whose  open  avowal  of  his  having  been  in  the 
habit  of  making  certain  statements,  simply  because  they  were 
"  necessary  for  his  position"  in  the  part  he  was  then  playing  in 
the  Church  of  England,  has  probably  not  yet  been  forgotten  by 
the  public.  Mr.  Gawthorn  has  at  least  the  satisfaction  of  finding 
that  there  is  a  considerable  body,  even  of  those  professedly  of  the 
Church  of  England,  whose  love  of  truth  appears  to  be  scarcely 
more  rigid  than  his  own.  Indeed  it  may  be  doubted,  whether  a 
single  act  like  that  of  Mr.  Gawthorn  is  not  a  less  offence,  and  less 
injurious  to  morality,  than  the  conduct  of  those  who  professing  to 
be  what  they  are  not,  sincere  members  of  a  Protestant  Church, 
are  constantly  laboring  to  "  unprotestantize  "  it. 

The  true  character  of  the  representation  they  have  given  of  the 
Archbishop's  second  letter  may  be  best  learned  by  contrasting  it 
with  the  statements  of  other  writers  of  their  own  school.  The 
remark  of  the  Guardian  on  this  letter,  when  it  appeared,  was, 
"We  cannot  pretend  to  say  that"  it  "much  changes  the  posture 
of  affairs  for  better  or  worse,"  (Oct.  1.)  And  the  Bristol  Church 
Union  has  published  a  resolution,  in  which  they  distinctly  main- 


10 


tain,  that  the  Archbishop's  "published  expiration  of  the  said 
letter,  in  his  reply  to  the  Rev.  W.  Palmer,  has  only  served  more 
fully  to  elucidate  the  fact  that  his  Grace  does  not  deem  the  impo- 
sition of  Episcopal  hands  in  all  cases  necessary  to  valid  ordina- 
tion," and  protest  against  it  accordingly.  {Guardian,  Oct.  15.) 

And  such  is  clearly  the  case.  The  Archbishop  simply  repu- 
diated the  views  that  had  been  falsely  charged  upon  him,  and 
reaffirmed  his  original  statement,  adding  arguments  in  favor  of 
it;  and  consequently,  as  any  fair  opponent  would  see,  left  the 
matter  precisely  as  it  stood  before. 

We  have  here,  therefore,  a  remarkable  proof  of  the  fitness  of 
these  self-constituted  ecclesiastical  authorities  for  guiding  the 
Church,  when,  in  a  matter  so  clear  as  this,  they  are  thus  contra- 
dicting and  opposing  one  another. 

But  the  truth  is,  that  it  was  "necessary  for  the  position"  of 
certain  of  the  Archbishop's  opponents,  that  they  should  make  out 
his  second  letter  to  be  a  retractation,  for  they  had  rashly  commit- 
ted themselves  to  an  agitation  which,  it  was  evident,  would  be  a 
failure.  The  Archbishop's  repudiation  of  the  views  attributed  to 
him  would  otherwise  have  produced  not  the  slightest  effect ;  for 
the  imputations,  being  utterly  without  ground  to  rest  upon,  had 
evidently  been  made  for  the  mere  purpose  of  bringing  disgrace 
upon  him  more  readily  than  by  calling  him  into  question  for  what 
he  really  had  said;  which,  however  obnoxious  to  them,  would  have 
afforded  them  a  poor  handle  with  the  public.  He  was  to  be 
punished  for  having  spoken  against  the  Tractarian  doctrine ;  but 
this  was  not  sufficiently  popular  for  them  to  make  it  their  pro- 
fessed ground  of  attack ;  and,  therefore,  according  to  the  well- 
known  tactics  of  many  in  this  party,  he  was  to  be  charged  with 
maintaining  something  which  might  more  plausibly  be  objected  to. 
And  no  repudiation  on  his  part  of  such  views  would  for  a  moment 
have  prevented  their  proceeding  with  their  protests,  if  only  there 
had  been  a  chance  of  success.  The  ground  of  their  quarrel  lay 
much  deeper  than  what  was  their  nominal  pretext  for  the  assault. 
It  was  in  fact  the  view  he  really  held,  that  was  the  object  of  their 
attack,  not  the  misrepresentation  which  for  their  own  ends  had 
been  palmed  upon  him. 

There  is  nothing  more  painful  perhaps  in  the  whole  Tractarian 
movement,  than  the  frequent  disregard  to  truth  by  which,  through- 
out its  course,  it  has  been  characterized.  Men  entertaining  Tract- 
arian views  are  in  a  false  position  in  our  Church,  and  conse- 
quently are  continually  driven  into  all  sorts  of  inconsistencies  and 
offences  against  truth.  And  no  declamatory  asseverations  of 
their  doctrines  being  the  genuine  doctrines  of  the  Church  of 
England  can  deceive  any  who  give  the  slightest  attention  to  the 
subject,  and  desire  to  know  the  truth.  They  commenced  with 
a  profession  of  slavish  submission  to  bishops  ;  and  their  doctrine 
demands  it  of  them.  Their  conduct  is  the  very  reverse,  to  a 
degree  that  makes  us  compare  it  with  thankfulness  with  that  of 


11 


the  supposed  undervalues  of  the  Episcopate,  the,  to  use  the  ordi- 
nary name,  Evangelical  body,  towards  other  prelates  in  past  times. 
Their  Catenas  parade  with  the  most  unblushing  effrontery  the 
names  of  divines  who  have  directly  and  clearly  opposed  their  views, 
as  of  advocates  in  tbeir  favor.  The  interpretation  they  are  com- 
pelled to  give  to  our  Articles  and  Formularies  (to  say  nothing 
of  the  veil  of  secrecy  thrown  over  their  practices)  is  such  as  to 
make  the  more  honest  among  their  disciples  writhe  under  the 
consciousness  of  the  duplicity  of  the  course  marked  out  for  them. 
This  is  not  the  mere  accusation  of  an  opponent  ;  it  is  the  con- 
fession of  those  who  have  belonged  to  them.  Witness  (to  refer 
to  no  other  authority)  the  pamphlet,  not  long  since  published, 
entitled  The  Morality  of  Tractarianism.  Whenever  they  have 
tried  their  ground  before  a  public  tribunal,  they  have  been 
utterly  defeated.  In  the  face  of  facts  like  these,  frothy  decla- 
mations, protesting  that  they  are  the  true  exponents  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  England,  will  deceive  none  but  those  who 
wish  to  be  deceived. 

But  to  the  point  more  immediately  before  us. 

The  great  question  raised  in  this  controversy,  is  simply  this  : 
Whether  it  is  a  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  that  Epis- 
copal ordination  is  a  sine  qua  non  to  constitute  a  valid  Christian 
ministry  ?  In  what  cases  Non-Episcopal  Ordinations  may  (if  ever) 
be  valid,  is  a  farther  question  not  now  under  consideration,  except 
so  far  as  concerns  the  Foreign  Churches  referred  to  in  the  Arch- 
bishop's note. 

The  Archbishop  holds  the  negative,  his  assailants  maintain 
the  affirmative  of  this  question.  And  we  are  glad  that  the  vio- 
lence of  the  Tractarian  party  has  brought  the  matter  prominently 
before  the  public,  as  it  affords  a  good  opportunity  of  impress- 
ing upon  the  public  mind  the  real  doctrine  of  our  Church  on 
the  subject,  and  of  showing  how  grievously  that  party  are  mis- 
representing it.  The  more  such  questions  are  publicly  discussed, 
the  better  will  it  be  for  the  cause  of  truth  and  sound  Church- of- 
England  principles.  We  have  to  thank  the  Tractarians  for  having 
unintentionally  done  good  service  to  the  cause  of  truth  on  more 
than  one  occasion,  by  giving  an  impulse  to  such  investigations. 
The  public  would  never  have  had  such  a  complete  conviction  of 
the  opposition  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  to  the  Romish  sacrifice 
in  the  Eucharist,  and  still  less  a  Judgment  respecting  it,  if  the 
Tractarians  had  not  attempted  to  force  upon  us  stone  altars.  And 
certainly,  for  the  public  having  become  far  better  acquainted  with 
the  doctrine  of  our  Church  on  the  effects  of  Baptism,  and  for  a 
Judgment  of  no  ordinary  value  respecting  it,  we  are  greatly  in- 
debted to  them.  And  it  would  give  us  no  little  pleasure,  to  find 
them  again  blundering  into  a  court  of  justice  in  support  of  some 
other  of  their  anti-Protestant  dogmas. 

In  discussing  the  question  now  at  issue,  we  shall  point  out — 


12 


I.  The  ground  taken  on  this  subject  by  our  early  divines. 

This,  in  the  absence  of  any  definite  statement  on  the  subject  in 
our  Formularies,  is  clearly  the  best  indication  we  can  have  of  the 
mind  of  our  Church  respecting  it,  and  of  the  meaning  of  any  indi- 
rect notices  touching  it  in  our  authoritative  documents. 

Let  us  first  hear  what  Mr.  Keble  himself  is  compelled  to  admit 
on  this  point.    Thus  he  writes  :  — 

"Since  the  Episcopal  succession  had  been  so  carefully  retained  in  the 
Church  of  England,  and  so  much  anxiety  evinced  to  render  botli  her  Liturgy 
and  Ordination  services  strictly  conformable  to  the  rules  and  doctrines  of 
antiquity,  it  might  have  been  expected,  that  the  defenders  of  the  English 
hierarchy  against  the  first  Puritans  should  take  the  highest  ground,  and  chal- 
lenge for  the  bishops  the  same  unreserved  submission,  on  the  same  plea  of 
exclusive  apostolic  prerogative,  which  their  adversaries  feared  not  to  insist 
on  for  their  elders  and  deacons.  It  is  notorious,  however,  that  such  vras  not 
in  general  the  line  preferred  [it  was  never  adopted,  as  is  confessed  presently] 
by  Jewel,  Whitgift,  Bishop  Cooper,  and  others,  to  whom  the  management  of 
that  controversy  was  intrusted  during  the  early  part  of  Elizabeth's  reign. 
They  do  not  expressly  disavow,  but  they  carefully  shun,  that  unreserved 
appeal  to  Christian  antiquity,  in  which  one  would  have  thought  they  must 
have  discerned  the  very  strength  of  their  cause  to  lie.  It  is  enough,  with 
them,  to  show  that  the  government  by  archbishops  and  bishops  is  ancient  and 
allowable;  they  never  venture  to  urge  its  exclusive  claim,  or  to  connect  the 
succession  with  the  validity  of  the  holy  sacraments  ;  and  yet  it  is  obvious, 
that  such  a  course  of  argument  alone  (supposing  it  borne  out  by  facts)  could 
fully  meet  all  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  It  must  have  occurred  to  the 
learned  writers  above  mentioned,  since  it  was  the  received  doctrine  of  the 
Church  down  to  their  days  ;  and  if  they  had  disapproved  it,  as  some  theolo- 
gians of  no  small  renown  have  since  done,  it  seems  unlikelj-  that  they  should 
have  passed  it  over  without  some  express  avowal  of  dissent;  considering 
that  they  always  wrote  with  an  eye  to  the  pretensions  of  Rome  also,  which 
popular  opinion  had  in  a  great  degree  mixed  up  with  this  doctrine  of  apos- 
tolical succession."  .  .  .  .  "  Farther,  it  is  obvious  that  those  divines  in 
particular  who  had  been  instrumental  but  a  little  before  in  the  second  change 
of  the  Liturgy  in  King  Edward's  time,  must  have  felt  themselves  in  some 
measure  restrained  from  pressing  with  its  entire  force  the  ecclesiastical 
tradition  on  church  government  and  orders,  inasmuch  as  in  the  aforesaid 
revision  they  had  given  up  altogether  the  same  tradition,  regarding  certain 
very  material  points  in  the  celebration,  if  not  in  the  doctrine,  of  the  holy 

Eucharist  It  should  seem  that  those  who  were  responsible  for 

these  omissions  must  have  felt  themselves  precluded,  ever  after,  from  urging 
the  necessity  of  Episcopacy,  or  of  anything  else,  on  the  ground  of  uniform 
Church  tradition."* 

Such  a  passage  as  this  presents  many  topics  for  remark  ;  and 
we  may  observe,  in  passing,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of 
Episcopacy  seems  to  be  confessedly  rested  on  tradition.  But 
the  object  for  which  we  have  quoted  it,  is  to  show  the  difficulties 
in  which  Mr.  Keble  confessedly  finds  himself  involved  in  dealing 
with  the  views  of  our  early  divines  on  this  subject.  He  admits, 
that  they  "never  venture  to  urge  the  exclusive  claim  of  the 
government  by  archbishops  and  bishops,  or  to  connect  the  suc- 
cession with  the  validity  of  the  holy  sacraments."    But  then  it  is 


*  Keble's  Pref.  to  Hooker,  pp.  lix. — Ixii. 


13 


hinted,  that  they  may  have  held  it,  because  they  have  not  given 
an  "express  avowal  of  dissent"  from  it. 

Now  we  hope  our  readers  have  too  good  an  opinion  of  the 
honesty  and  fair  dealing  of  those  venerable  men,  not  to  feel  as- 
sured, that,  if  they  had  held  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  necessity 
of  the  Episcopal  form  of  church  government,  they  would  have 
said  so.  Can  we  suppose  that,  in  the  midst  of  that  intimate 
intercourse  and  communion  they  maintained  with  the  Foreign 
Non-Episcopal  Churches,  they  would  never  have  admonished 
them  of  the  fatal  effect  which  their  want  of  the  Episcopal  form  of 
church  government  entailed  upon  their  ministrations  ?  Would 
they  have  acknowledged  their  ministers  in  the  way  they  did,  as 
fellow-laborers  in  the  Church  of  Christ  ? 

But  in  fact  we  shall  find,  from  their  own  words,  that  they  do, 
virtually  at  least,  if  not  more  expressly,  disavow  the  doctrine 
advocated  by  Mr.  Keble  and  his  party.  There  was  no  necessity, 
at  a  time  when  no  one  in  our  Church  thought  of  upholding  such 
a  doctrine,  for  them  to  write  formally  and  expressly  against  it. 
But  they  do  disavow  such  a  notion,  writing  in  a  way  irrecon- 
cilable with  their  holding  it.  And  we  must  add  farther,  that  it 
will  be  found  that  the  authors  whom  Mr.  Keble  quotes  as  having 
first  advocated  his  exclusive  doctrine  in  our  Church,  bear  witness 
against  it. 

Having  thus  seen  how  much  our  opponents  are  compelled  to 
concede,  let  us  proceed  to  consider  the  following  testimonies: — 

And  we  may  notice,  first,  that  even  in  the  time  of  Henry  VIII., 
at  the  very  dawn  of  the  Reformation,  the  bishops  and  clergy  of 
our  Church  put  forth  a  document  containing  the  very  doctrine  on 
which  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordinations  has  been  chiefly 
rested,  namely,  the  parity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  with  respect 
to  the  ministerial  powers,  essentially  and  by  right  belonging  to 
them.  In  the  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,  put  forth  by  the 
bishops  and  clergy  in  1537,  we  read  as  follows: — 

"As  touching  the  sacrament  of  holy  orders,  we  think  it  convenient  that 
all  bishops  and  preachers  shall  instruct  and  teach  the  people  committed  unto 
their  spiritual  charge,  first,  how  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  did  institute  and 
ordain,  in  the  New  Testament,  that  besides  the  civil  powers  and  governance 
of  kings  and  princes  (which  is  called  potestas  tjladii,  the  power  of  the  sword), 
there  should  also  be  continually  in  the  Church  militant  certain  other  minis- 
ters or  officers,  which  should  have  special  power,  authority,  and  commission, 
under  Christ,  to  preach  and  teach  the  word  of  God  unto  His  people ;  to  dis- 
pense and  administer  the  sacraments  of  God  unto  them,"  &c.  &c. 

"  That  this  office,  this  power  and  authority,  was  committed  and  given  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles  unto  certain  persons  only,  that  is  to  say,  unto  priests 
or  bishops,  whom  they  did  elect,  call,  and  admit  thereunto,  by  their  prayer 
and  imposition  of  their  hands." 

And,  speaking  of  "the  sacrament  of  orders"  to  be  administered 
by  the  bishop,  it  observes,  when  noticing  the  various  orders  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  :  "  The  truth  is,  that  in  the  New  Testament  there 
is  no  mention  made  of  any  degrees  or  distinctions  in  orders,  but 
2 


14 


only  of  deacons  or  ministers,  and  of  priests  or  bishops."  And 
throughout,  when  speaking  of  the  jurisdiction  and  other  privileges 
belonging  to  the  ministry,  it  speaks  of  them  as  belonging  to 
"  priests  and  bishops." 

Again,  in  the  revision  of  this  work  set  forth  by  the  king  in 
1543,  entitled  A  Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition  for  any 
Christian  Man,  in  the  chapter  on  "the  Sacrament  of  Orders," 
priests  and  bishops  are  spoken  of  as  of  the  same  order.  For  after 
having  spoken  of  Timothy  being  "ordered  and  consecrated  priest" 
by  St.  Paul,  and  remarked,  "whereby  it  appeareth  that  St.  Paul 
did  consecrate  and  order  priests  and  bishops  by  the  imposition  of 
his  hands ;  and  as  the  apostles  themselves,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
Church,  did  order  priests  and  bishops,  so  they  appointed  and 
willed  the  other  bishops  after  them  to  do  the  like,  as  St.  Paul 
manifestly  showeth,  in  his  Epistle  to  Titus,  saying,  &c,  and  to 
Timothy,  &c.;"  it  subjoins,  shortly  after  :  "Of  these  two  orders 
only,  that  is  to  say,  priests  and  deacons,  Scripture  maketh  express 
mention,  and  how  they  were  conferred  of  the  apostles  by  prayer 
and  imposition  of  their  hands."* 

Now  this  view  certainly  goes  far  to  remove  the  difficulty  as  to 
recognizing  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  in  the  absence 
of  bishops ;  and  this  view  we  see  was  entertained  by  the  leading 
bishops  and  clergy  in  this  country  at  the  very  dawn  of  the  Reform- 
ation ;  and  those  who  are  at  all  acquainted  with  Ecclesiastical 
history,  know  that  this  view  had  long  been  advocated  by  many  of 
the  divines  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  especially  among  the  scho- 
lastic divines,  including  their  great  founder,  Peter  Lombard,  the 
Master  of  the  Sentences. 

Our  opponents  are  fond  of  speaking  of  these  early  documents, 
published  at  the  very  dawn  of  the  Reformation,  as  authoritative 
proofs  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Church.  The  above  extracts  may 
perhaps  show  them,  that,  however  pleasant  the  first  taste  may  be, 
there  are  some  sours  mixed  up  with  the  Romish  sweets  which  these 
works  contain;  and  if  they  will  have  the  one,  they  must  be  satis- 
fied to  take  the  other. 

We  decline,  for  the  sake  of  a  momentary  gain,  to  make  any 
such  illegitimate  use  of  these  documents.  But  this  we  do  say, 
that  if  even  then  the  Tractarian  doctrine  of  Episcopacy  was  not 
held  by  our  Church,  much  less  is  it  conceivable  that  it  was  held 
after  the  current  of  our  theology  had  taken  a  course  so  much 
more  decidedly  Protestant,  and  our  divines  were  recognizing  the 
ministers  of  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches  as  their  col- 
leagues in  the  ministry.  In  these  extracts,  we  see  the  views  on 
this  subject  with  which  our  divines  commenced  the  work  of  Re- 
formation; and  it  will  hardly  be  urged  that,  when  they  went  for- 
ward on  every  other  point,  they  retrograded  in  this. 

But  we  have  still  stronger  testimony  to  the  views  of  the  leading 


*  See  Formularies  ofFaith,  &c.,  pp.  101,  105,  27S,  2S1.    Oiford,  1825. 


15 


divines  of  the  English  Church  at  this  period.  In  the  autumn  of 
1540,  certain  questions  were  proposed  by  the  king  to  the  chief 
bishops  and  divines  of  the  day,*  of  which  the  tenth  was  this: 
"  Whether  bishops  or  priests  were  first  ?  and  if  the  priests  were 
first,  then  the  priest  made  the  bishop."  With  the  wording  of  this 
question  we  have  nothing  to  do,  and  should  certainly  be  sorry  to 
be  made  answerable  for  it;  but  our  object  is  to  see  what  views 
were  elicited  in  the  answers.  Now  to  this  question  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  (Cranmer)  replied  :  "  The  bishops  and  priests  were 
at  one  time,  and  were  not  two  things,  but  both  one  office  in  the 
beginning  of  Christ's  religion."  The  Archbishop  of  York  (Lee) 
says:  "  The  name  of  a  bishop  is  not  properly  a  name  of  order,  but 
a  name  of  office,  signifying  an  overseer.  And  although  the  inferior 
shepherds  have  also  care  to  oversee  their  flock,  yet,  forsomuch  as 
the  bishop's  charge  is  also  to  oversee  the  shepherds,  the  name  of 
overseer  is  given  to  the  bishops,  and  not  to  the  other;  and  as  they 
be  in  degree  higher,  so  in  their  consecration  we  find  difference 
even  from  the  primitive  Church."  The  Bishop  of  London  (Bonner) 
says :  "  I  think  the  bishops  were  first,  and  yet  I  think  it  is  not  of 
importance,  whether  the  priest  then  made  the  bishop,  or  else  the 
bishop  the  priest ;  considering  (after  the  sentence  of  St.  Jerome) 
that  in  the  beginning  of  the  Church  there  was  none  (or,  if  it  were, 
very  small)  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  priest,  especially 
touching  the  signification."  The  Bishop  of  St.  David's  (Barlow), 
and  the  Bishop  elect  of  Westminster  (Thirlby),  held  that  bishops 
and  priests  "  at  the  beginning  were  all  one."  Dr.  Robertson,  in 
his  answer,  says :  "Nec  opinor  absurdum  esse,  ut  sacerdos  episco- 
pum  consecret,  si  episcopus  haberi  non  potest."  Dr.  Cox  (after- 
wards Bishop  of  Ely)  says :  "  Although  by  Scripture  (as  St. 
Hierome  saith)  priests  and  bishops  be  one,  and  therefore  the  one 
not  before  the  other,  yet  bishops,  as  they  be  now,  were  after 
priests,  and  therefore  made  of  priests."  Dr.  Redmayn,  the  learned 
Master  ..of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  says  :  "  They  be  of  like 
beginning,  and  at  the  beginning  were  both  one,  as  St.  Hierome 
and  other  old  authors  show  by  the  Scripture,  whereof  one  made 
another  indifferently."  Dr.  Edgeworth  says  :  "  That  the  priests 
in  the  primitive  Church  made  bishops,  I  think  no  inconvenience 
(as  Jerome  saith,  in  an  Epist.  ad  Evagrium).  Even  like  as 
soldiers  should  choose  one  among  themselves  to  be  their  captain; 
so  did  priests  choose  one  of  themselves  to  be  their  bishop,  for  con- 
sideration of  his  learning,  gravity,  and  good  living,  &c,  and  also 
for  to  avoid  schisms  among  themselves  by  them,  that  some  might 
not  draw  people  one  way,  and  others  another  way,  if  they  lacked 
one  Head  among  them."  With  respect  to  the  other  answers, 
which  are  from  the  Bishops  of  Rochester  (Heath)  and  Carlisle 
(Aldrich),  and  Drs.  Day,  Oglethorp,  Symmons,  Tresham,  and 

*  These  questions  and  answers  are  given  by  Burnet,  in  his  History  of  the  Reformation, 
and  Collyer,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History. 


16 


Coren,  it  is  difficult  to  judge  what  the  views  of  the  writers  would 
have  been  on  the  point  we  are  now  considering. 

All  the  leading  divines,  therefore,  whose  testimonies  we  have 
just  quoted,  were  of  opinion  that  bishops  and  priests  were,  pro- 
perly and  strictly  speaking,  of  the  same  order,  though  differing  in 
degree. 

Nay,  more ;  we  find  by  the  answers  to  the  next  question,  that, 
even  at  that  time,  some  were  prepared  to  take  the  next  step,  and 
grant  to  presbyters,  under  some  circumstances,  the  power  to 
ordain  presbyters ;  and  that  most  of  them  replied  uncertainly  to 
the  question.  The  question  was  this:  "  Whether  a  bishop  hath 
authority  to  make  a  priest  by  the  Scripture  or  no  ?  And  whether 
any  other  but  only  a  bishop  can  make  a  priest?"  The  reply  of 
Cranmer,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  goes  much  beyond  what  we 
should  wish  to  plead  for,  and  is  as  follows:  "A  bishop  may  make 
a  priest  by  the  Scripture,  and  so  may  princes  and  governors  also, 
and  that  by  the  authority  of  God  committed  to  them,  and  the 
people  also  by  their  election  :  for  a3  we  read  that  bishops  have 
done  it,  so  Christian  emperors  and  princes  usually  have  done  it; 
and  the  people,  before  Christian  princes  were,  commonly  did  elect 
their  bishops  and  priests."  The  answers  given  by  the  rest  to  the 
latter  part  of  the  question  were  to  the  following  effect.  Dr.  Cox 
(made  in  1559  Bishop  of  Ely)  and  Dr.  Tresham  openly  admit,  that, 
in  a  case  of  necessity,  others  may  ordain  besides  bishops.  The 
Archbishop  of  York  says :  "  That  any  other  than  bishops  or 
priests  may  make  a  priest,  we  neither  find  in  Scripture  nor  out  of 
Scripture  ;"  clearly  implying  that  priests  may  make  a  priest. 
The  Bishops  of  Rochester  and  Carlisle,  the  Bishop  elect  of  West- 
minster, and  Drs.  Redmayn,  Symmons,  Robertson,  Leighton, 
Curren,  Edgeworth,  and  Oglethorp,  reply  only,  that  they  have 
never  read  that  others  besides  bishops  assumed  the  power  of 
ordaining.  The  Bishop  of  London  and  Dr.  Day  give  no  reply  to 
this  part  of  the  question.  So  that  not  one  ventures  to  determine 
definitively  that  the  power  of  ordination  belongs  exclusively  to 
bishops. 

Such  was  the  doctrine  of  the  leading  divines  of  our  Church  at 
this  period  on  the  subject.  We  may  therefore  safely  leave  it  to 
the  reader  to  determine,  whether,  when  in  1549  they  put  forth  the 
Ordinal,  with  a  Preface  in  which  they  speak  of  the  "three  orders" 
of  the  Christian  ministry,  they  meant  to  assert,  that  the  Episco- 
pal and  Priestly  orders  were  so  completely  two  distinct  orders, 
that  the  special  duties  for  the  performance  of  which  bishops  had 
been  set  apart  could  under  no  circumstances  be  performed  by 
priests;  and  were  not  rather  using  the  word  "order"  in  a  large 
and  general  sense  ;  especially  when  we  find  that  the  Services 
never  apply  the  word  order  or  ordering  to  the  making  of  bishops, 
but  only  in  the  case  of  deacons  and  priests,  and  speak  of  the  con- 
secration of  bishops ;  and  that  most  of  our  early  divines,  as,  for 
instance,  the  most  distinguished  among  the  earliest  defenders  of 


17 


our  Cliurch  against  the  Puritans,  Archbishop  Whitgift  held  (as  we 
shall  show  presently)  that  bishops  and  priests  are,  strictly  speak- 
ing, of  the  same  order. 

Let  us  proceed  to  the  divines  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign,  when 
our  Formularies  were  finally  constituted  and  established  as  (with 
a  few  exceptions)  they  now  stand. 

Unfortunately,  the  question  now  at  issue  was  not  so  brought 
into  controversy  at  that  period  as  to  enable  us  to  find  many  direct 
testimonies  upon  the  subject;  for  no  one  but  a  professed  Romanist 
dreamed  of  throwing  a  doubt  upon  the  validity  of  the  Orders  of 
the  divines  of  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches.  We  are 
therefore  thrown  upon  their  incidental  notices  of  the  matter.  But 
even  where  the  witness  is  not  direct,  it  is  sufficiently  plain  to  in- 
dicate the  doctrine  held.  And,  in  fact,  the  ground  then  taken  on 
this  subject  by  our  leading  divines  was  much  lower  than  what  the 
lowest  of  the  (so-called)  Low  Churchmen  of  modern  times  have 
ordinarily  maintained  ;  for  they  expressly  defend  the  position, 
that  the  form  of  church  government  adopted  is  a  matter  of  indif- 
ference, left  to  the  free  choice  of  each  Church  for  itself. 

We  give  the  precedence,  as  the  order  of  time  demands,  to  the 
learned  Bishop  of  Exeter,  Dr.  Alley,  who  in  his  Preelections  upon 
1  Peter,  read  publicly  in  St.  Paul's,  in  1560,  says : — 

"  What  difference  is  between  a  bishop  and  a  priest,  S.  Hierome,  writing 
ad  Titum,  doth  declare,  whose  words  be  these:  'Idem  est  ergo  presbyter, 
qui  episcopus, '  &c. ;  a  priest,  therefore,  is  the  same  that  a  bishop  is,  &c." 

And  having  given  Jerome's  words  in  full,  he  adds  :  — 

"These  words  are  alleged,  that  it  may  appear  priests  among  the  elders  to 
have  been  even  the  same  that  bishops  were.  But  it  grew  by  little  and  little  that 
the  whole  charge  and  cure  should  be  appointed  to  one  bishop  within  his  pre- 
cinct, that  the  seeds  of  dissension  might  utterly  be  rooted  out."  (Alley's 
Poor  Man's  Library,  2d  ed.  1571,  torn.  i.  fol.  'J5,  %.) 

It  could  hardly  be  doubted,  then,  by  one  who  held  this,  that  if 
the  circumstances  of  the  Church  required  it,  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion would  be  valid. 

About  the  same  period,  namely,  in  1563,  we  have  a  much 
stronger  testimony  from  Dr.  Pilkington,  then  Bishop  of  Dur- 
ham : — 

"Yet  remains  one  doubt  unanswered  in  these  few  words,  when  he  says, 
that  '  the  government  of  the  Church  was  committed  to  bishops,'  as  though 
they  had  received  a  larger  and  higher  commission  from  God  of  doctrine  and 
discipline  than  other  lower  priests  or  ministers  have,  and  thereby  might 
challenge  a  greater  prerogative.  But  this  is  to  be  understood,  that  the  pri- 
vileges and  superiorities,  which  bishops  have  above  other  ministers,  are  rather 
granted  by  men  for  maintaining  of  better  order  and  quietness  in  commonwealths, 
than  commanded-  by  God  in  his  word.  Ministers  have  better  knowledge  and 
utterance  some  than  other,  but  their  ministry  is  of  equal  dignity.  God's  com- 
mission and  commandment  is  like  and  indifferent  to  all,  priest,  bishop,  arch- 
bishop, prelate,  by  what  name  soever  he  be  called  St.  Paul  calls  the 

ciders  of  Ephesus  together,  and  says,  '  the  Holy  Ghost  made  them  bishops  to 
rule  the  Church  of  God.'  (Acts  xx.)  lie  writes  also  to  the  bishops  of  Philip- 


IS 


pos,  meaning  the  ministers  St.  Jerome,  in  his  commentary  on  the  1st 

chapter  Ad.  Tit.,  says  that  '  a  bishop  and  a  priest  is  all  one.'.  ...  A  bishop  is 
a  name  of  office,  labor,  and  pains."  (Confut.  of  an  Addition.  Works,  ed. 
Park  Soc.  pp.  493,  494.) 

Both  these  were  among  the  bishops  who  settled  our  Articles,  on 
the  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 

Our  next  witness  shall  be  Bishop  Jewell,  of  whose  standing  in 
our  Church  it  .is  unnecessary  to  add  a  word.  On  the  parity  of 
order  in  priests  and  bishops,  he  says  : — 

"  Is  it  so  horrible  a  heresy,  as  he  [Harding]  maketh  it,  to  say,  that  by  the 
Scriptures  of  God  a  bishop  and  a  priest  are  all  one?  or  knoweth  he  how  far, 
and  unto  whom,  he  reacheth  the  name  of  an  heretic  ?  Verily  Chrysostom 
saith  :  '  Between  a  bishop  and  a  priest  in  a  manner  there  is  no  difference.' 
(In  1  Tim.  horn.  11.)  S.  Ilierome  saith. .  . .  'The  apostle  plainly  teacheth  us, 
that  priests  and  bishops  be  all  one.'  (ad  Evagr.)  S.  Augustine  saith  :  '  What 
is  a  bishop  but  the  first  priest ;  that  is  to  say,  the  highest  priest?'  (In  Quoest, 
N.  et  V.  Test.  q.  101.)  So  saith  S.  Ambrose  :  '  There  is  but  one  consecration 
(ordinatio)  of  priest  and  bishop;  for  both  of  them  are  priests,  but  the  bishop 
is  the  first.'  (In  1  Tim.  c.  3.)  All  these  and  other  more  holy  Fathers,  to- 
gether with  St.  Paul  the  apostle,  for  thus  saying,  by  M.  Harding's  advice, 
must  be  holden  for  heretics."  (Def.  of  Apol.  Pt.  ii.  c.  9.  div.  i.  Works,  p. 
202.    See  also  Pt.  ii.  c.  iii.  div.  i.  p.  85.) 

But  there  is  a  passage  in  his  writings  still  more  strongly  bear- 
ing on  the  point  in  question.  Harding  had  charged  our  Church 
with  deriving  its  orders  from  apostate  bishops,  &c.  Jewell  re- 
plies : — 

"Therefore  we  neither  have  bishops  without  church,  nor  church  without 
bishops.  Neither  doth  the  Church  of  England  this  day  depend  of  them  whom 

you  often  call  apostates,  as  if  our  Church  were  no  Church  without  them  

If  there  were  not  one,  neither  of  them  nor  of  us  left  alire,  yet  would  not  there- 
fore the  whole  Church  of  England  flee  to  Lovaine.  Tertull'ian  saith  :  '  And  we 
being  laymen,  are  we  not  priests  ?  It  is  written,  Christ  hath  made  us  both  a 
kingdom  and  priests  unto  God  his  Father.  The  authority  of  the  Church, 
and  the  honor  by  the  assembly,  or  council  of  order  sanctified  of  God,  hath 
made  a  difference  between  the  lay  and  the  clergy.  Where  as  there  is  no  as- 
sembly of  ecclesiastical  order,  the  priest  being  there  alone  (without  the  com- 
pany of  other  priests)  doth  both  minister  the  oblation  and  also  baptize.  Yea, 
and  be  there  but  three  together,  and  though  they  be  laymen,  yet  is  there  a 
church.  For  every  man  liveth  of  his  own  faith.'  "  (Def.  of  Apol.  Pt.  ii.  c.  v. 
div.  i.  p.  129.) 

It  is  needless  to  point  out  how  much  this  passage  implies. 
We  proceed  to  Archbishop  Whitgift. 

And  first,  as  to  the  parity  of  order  in  bishops  and  priests,  he 
speaks  thus: — 

"  Every  bishop  is  a  priest,  hut  every  priest  hath  not  the  name  ami  title  of  a 
bishop,  in  that  meaning  that  Jerome  in  this  place  [Ad  Evagr.]  taketh  the 
name  of  a  bishop  .  .  .  Neither  shall  you  find  this  word  episcopus  commonly 
used  but  for  that  priest  that  is  in  deyree  over  and  abocc  the  rest,  notwithi-tanding 
episcopus  be  oftentimes  called  presbyter,  because  presbyter  is  the  more  general 
name."  (Def.  of  Answ.  to  Adm.  1574,  fol.  p.  383.) 

"Although  Ilierome  confess,  that  by  Scripture  presbyter  and  episcopus  is 
all  one  (as  in  deed  tiiet  be  quoad  ministerium),  yet  doth  he  acknowledge  a 
superiority  of  the  bishop  before  the  minister  Therefore  no  doubt  this 


19 


is  Jerome's  mind,  that  a  bishop  in  degree  and  dignity  is  above  the  minister, 
though  he  be  one  and  the  self-same  with  him  in  the  office  of  ministering  the 
word  and  sacraments."  (lb.  pp.  384,  385.) 

Secondly,  as  to  the  form  of  government  to  be  followed  in  the 
Church.  His  adversary  Cartwright,  like  the  great  body  of  the 
Puritans,  contended  for  the  exclusive  admissibility  of  the  plat- 
form of  church  government  he  advocated  ;  and,  like  Archdeacon 
Denison,  maintained  that  "  matters  of  discipline  and  kind  of  gov- 
ernment are  matters  necessary  to  salvation  and  of  faith."  And 
this  is  Whitgift's  reply  :— 

"  I  confess  that  in  a  church  collected  together  in  one  place,  and  at  liberty, 
government  is  necessary  in  the  second  kind  of  necessity;  but  that  any  one 
kind  of  government  is  so  necessary  that  without  it  the  Church  cannot  1m-  say-  , 
or  that  it  may  not  be.  altered  into  some  other  kind  thought  to  be  moree^heut, 
I  utterly  deny,  and  the  reasons  that  move  me  so  to  do  be  these.  1  he  n.  st  ,s, 
because >  I fin<l  no  one  certain  and  perfect  kind  of  government  preserved  or  com- 
mando! in  the  Srrin/ures  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  which  no  doubt  should  have 


been  d 
Secoin 


vlvation  of  the  Church 
the  Church  be  these  only;  the  true 


cmna  of  the  word  of  God,  and  the  right  administration  of  the  sacraments  : 
for  (as  Master  Calvin  saith,  in  his  book  against  the  Anabaptists) :  lhis  honor 
is  meet  to  be  given  to  the  word  of  God,  and  to  his  sacraments,  that  whereso- 
ever we  see  the  word  of  God  truly  preached,  and  God  according  to  the  same 
truly  worshipped,  and  the  sacraments  without  superstition  administered, 
there  we  mav  without  all  controversy  conclude  the  Church  of  God  to  be: 
and  a  little  after :  '  So  much  we  must  esteem  the  word  of  God  and  his  sacra- 
ments, that  wheresoever  we  find  them  to  be,  there  we  may  certainly  know 
the  church  of  God  to  be,  although  in  the  common  life  of  men  many  faults 
and  errors  be  found.'  The  same  is  the  opinion  of  other  godly  and  learned 
writers  and  the  judgment  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  as  appeareth  by  their 
Confessions.  So  that  notwithstanding  government,  or  some  kind  ol  govern- 
ment may  be  a  part  of  the  Church,  touching  the  outward  form  and  perfec- 
tion of  it,  yet  is  it  not  such  a  part  of  the  essence  and  being,  but  that  it  may 
be  the  Church  of  Christ  without  this  or  that  kind  of  government  and  therefore 
the  kind  of  government  of  the  Church  is  not  necessary  unto  salvation.  (10. 

^  "  j'lenv  that  the  Sci-iplures  do  ...  .set  down  any  one  certain  form  and  kind 
of  government  of  the  Church  to  be  perpetual  for  all  times,  persons,  and  places 
without  alteration."  (lb.  p.  84.) 

And  speaking  of  the  platform  of  church  government  contended 
for  by  Cartwright,  he  says  : — 

"Yetwo-ldl  not  have  any  man  to  think  that  I  condemn  any  churches 
where  this  government  is  lawfully  and  without  danger  received  ;  only  I  have  re- 
gard to  whole  kingdoms,  especially  this  realm,  where  it  cannot  but  be  dan- 
gerous."   (lb.  p.  658.) 

In  Tract  17,  c.  iv.  he  undertakes  expressly  to  prove:  "That 
there  is  no  one  certain  kind  of  government  in  the  Church  which 
must  of  necessity  be  perpetually  observed."  {lb.  p.  658.)  And  he 
remarks  in  it: — 

"  It  is  plain  that  any  one  certain  form  or  kind  of  external  government  per- 
petually to  be  observed,  is  nowhere  in  the  Scripture  prescribed  to  the  Church; 
but  the  charge  thereof  is  left  to  the  Christian  magistrate,  so  that  nothing  be 
done  contrary  to  the  word  of  God."    {lb.  p.  659). 


20 


The  equality  of  bishops  and  presbyters  jure  divino,  was  also  ex- 
pressly maintained  at  this  period  by  the  learned  Dr.  W.  Whitaker, 
Reg.  Prof,  of  Div.  at  Cambridge.  Among  other  remarks  on  the 
subject,  he  says,  referring  to  Jerome's  words  in  his  Commentary  on 
Titus,  c.  i.  :— 

"  Si  Episcopi  consuetudine  non  disposiitone  Dominica  presbyteris  raajores 
sunt,  turn  humano  non  divino  jure  totuni  hoc  discrimen  constat."  (Ilesp.  ad 
Camp,  defens.  adv.  J.  Duraium.  lib.  vi.    Op.  torn.  i.  p.  149.) 

And  to  the  reference  of  his  opponent  to  Jerome's  Epistle  to 
Evagrius,  showing  that  the  power  of  ordination  had  been  placed  in 
the  hands  of  the  bishop,  he  replies  : — 

"  Quod  autcm  affers  ex  eadem  Epistola,  ad  humanam  non  divinam  consti- 
iutionem  pertinet.  Etsi  enim  ortu  suo  iidem  erant  ambo,  postea  iamen  (in- 
quit  Ilieronymus)  units  ekchis  est,  qui  ccetet  is pra-poneretur ;  atque  indc  natum 
est  illud  episcopi  ac  prcsbyteri  discrinien."  (Ibid.) 

Of  course,  then,  that  which  owed  its  origin  to  human  appoint- 
ment might,  by  the  same  authority,  in  any  individual  church,  be 
laid  aside. 

Our  next  witness  shall  be  Hooker,  in  himself  a  host.  And 
when  our  readers  have  perused  the  extracts  we  are  about  to  give 
from  his  writings,  they  will  be  able  to  judge  of  the  honesty  with 
which  his  name  has  been  used  in  favor  of  the  exclusive  doctrine  of 
the  Tractarians,  both  in  their  Catenas  and  in  their  recent  onslaught 
on  the  Primate. 

"  Now  whereas  hereupon  (he  observes)  some  do  infer  that  no  ordination 
can  stand,  but  only  such  as  is  made  by  bishops  which  have  had  their  ordina- 
tion likewise  by  other  bishops  before  them,  till  we  come  to  the  very  Apostles 
of  Christ  themselves;  in  which  respect  it  was  demanded  of  Beza  at  Poissie, 
'  By  what  authority  he  could  administer  the  holy  sacraments,  &c.'  [Our  rea- 
ders will  observe  the  instance  cited,  the  very  case  now  in  question  between  the 
Archbishop  and  his  assailants.]  ....  To  this  we  answer,  that  there  may  be 
sometimes  very  just  and  sufficient  reason  to  allow  ordixatiox  made  without 
a  bishop.  The  whole  Church  visible  being  the  true  original  subject  of  all 
power,  it  hath  not  ordinarily  allowed  any  other  than  bishops  alone  to  ordain  ; 
howbeit,  as  the  ordinary  course  is  ordinarily  in  all  things  to  be  observed,  so 
it  may  be,  in  some  cases,  not  unnecessary  that  we  decline  from  the  ordinary 
ways.  Men  may  be  extraordinarily,  yet  allowably,  two  ways  admitted  unto 
spiritual  junctions  in  the  Church.    One  is,  when  God  Himself  doth  of  Himself 

raise  up  any  Another  ....  when  the  exigence  of  necessity  doth 

constrain  to  leave  the  usual  ways  of  the  Church,  which  otherwise  we  would 
willingly  keep."    (Zed.  Pol,  vii.  14.    See  also  iii.  11.) 

Here  is  a  direct  assertion  of  the  validity  of  such  orders  as  those 
of  Beza. 

And  in  a  former  passage  of  the  same  book,  he  distinctly  admits 
the  power  of  the  Church  at  large  to  take  away  the  Episcopal  form 
of  government  from  the  Church,  and  says  : — 

"Let  them  [i.  e.  bishops']  continually  bear  in  mind,  that  it  is  rather  the  force 
of  custom,  whereby  the  Church,  having  so  tony  found  it  good  to  continue  under 
the  regiment  of  her  virtuous  bishops,  doth  sttll  uphold,  maintain,  and  honor  them 


21 


in  thai  respect,  than  that  any  such  true  and  heavenly  law  can  be  shoiecd  by  the 
evidence  whereof  it  may  of  a  truth  appear,  that  the  Lord  himself  hath  appointed 
presbyters  forever  to  be  under  the  regiment  of  bishops ;"  adding,  that  "their 
authority"  is  "a  sword  which  the  Church  hath  power  to  take  from  them."  (Ib. 
vii.  5.    See  also  i.  14,  and  iii.  10.) 

And,  therefore,  though  he  admits  the  office  and  superiority  of 
bishops  to  be  of  Apostolical  institution,  and  takes  much  higher 
ground  on  the  subject  than  most  of  his  contemporaries,  yet  all 
that  he  expressly  undertakes  to  prove  on  the  subject  is,  that 
such  superiority  is  "  a  thing  alloivable,  lawful,  and  good."  (Ib. 
vii.  3.) 

We  will  take  next  the  testimony  of  Hadrian  Saravia ;  of  -whom 
Mr.  Keble  writes  thus  : — 

"Saravia  is  a  distinct  and  independent  testimony  to  the  doctrine  of  exclusive 

[the  Italics  are  ours]  divine  right  in  bishops  And  since  Saravia  was 

afterwards  in  familiar  intercourse  with  Hooker,  and  his  confidential  adviser 
when  writing  on  nearly  the  same  subjects,  we  may  with  reason  use  the 
recorded  opinions  of  the  one  for  interpreting  what  might  seem  otherwise 
ambiguous  in  the  other."    {Pref.  to  Hooker,  p.  lxvii.) 

Now  certainly  Hadrian  Saravia  took  very  high  ground  in  his 
defence  of  Episcopacy,  maintaining  that  the  Episcopal  authority 
was  of  Divine  institution  and  Apostolical  tradition,  and  was 
taught  as  well  by  the  word  of  God  as  the  universal  consent  of  all 
Churches;*  yet  in  the  same  work  he  speaks  thus  : — 

"In  our  fathers'  memory  Luther,  Bucer,  CEcolampadius,  and  others,  had 
no  other  calling  than  that  which  they  had  received  in  the  Church  of  Rome; 
and  when  it  happened  to  them  to  be  called  before  Cajsar,  no  question  respect- 
ing their  calling  could  ever  be  justly  raised  ;  and  if  it  had  been,  they  had  an 
answer  ready  more  lit  in  my  judgment  than  that  which  was  made  at  the  Con- 
ference at  Poissy  For  although  all  who  had  assembled  there  before 

the  king  had  not  the  same  kind  of  ordination,  and  some  were  ordained  by 
bishops  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  others  by  the  Reformed  Churches,  none  of  them 
ought  to  have  been  ashamed  of  his  ordination.  They  might,  so  far  as  I  can  see, 
without  any  danger,  have  professed  that  they  had  been  ordained  and  called, 
some  by  bishops  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  others  by  orthodox  presbyters,  in  the 
order  received  in  the  Churches  of  Christ,  after  an  examination  of  their 
morals  and  doctrine,  and  with  the  authority  of  the  magistrate  and  consent  of 
the  people,  with  the  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer.  Although  I  am  of 
opinion  that  ordinations  of  ministers  of  the  Church  properly  belong  to  bishops, 
yet  necessity  causes  that  when  they  are  wanting  and  cannot  be  had,  orthodox 
presbyters  can  in  case  of  necessity  ordain  a  presbyter;  which  thing,  although 
it  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  order  received  from  the  times  of  the  Apostles, 
yet  is  excused  by  the  necessity  of  the  case,  which  causes  that  in  such  a  state 
of  things  a  presbyter  may  be  a  bishop.  Moreover,  although  the  act  is  out  of 
the  usual  order,  the  calling  is  not  to  be  considered  extraordinary."  [And 
then,  having  remarked  that  no  one  ought  to  receive  orders  from  an  heretical 
bishop,  and  that  the  Romish  bishops  were  all  heretics,  he  adds:]  "This  also 
is  true,  that  in  such  a  state  of  confusion  in  the  Church,  when  all  the  bishops 
fall  away  from  the  true  worship  of  God  unto  idolatry,  without  any  violation 
of  the  government  of  the  Church,  the  whole  authority  of  the  Episcopal  eccle- 
siastical government  is  devolved  upon  the  pious  and  orthodox  presbyters,  so 

*  Episcopalem  authoritatem  Divinrc  institutionis  et  Apostolica:  traditionis  esse  defendo, 
et  id  lam  Verbo  Dei  quam  universal!  omnium  Ecclesiarum  consensu  doceri. — [Dcfcns. 
Tract,  de  div.  Ministr.  Ev.  gradibus:  In  Eptst.  dedicat.)    Op.  1611. 


22 


that  a  presbyter  dearly  may  ordain  presbyters  There  is  one  God,  one 

Lord  Jesus  Christ,  one  Church,  one  Baptism,  one  Ministry.  The  difference 
there  is  between  presbyters  and  pastors  of  the  Church  of  Christ  consists  in 
the  authority  of  Ecclesiastical  government.  And  this  is  not  violated,  when 
the  higher  orders  being  in  any  way  removed,  those  who  are  of  the  lowest 
grade  alone  remain,  with  whom,  consequently,  the  whole  power  of  the  keys  of 

the  Church  then  resides  But  where  all  the  bishops  are  become 

impious  heretics,  the  orthodox  presbyters  are  freed  from  their  jurisdiction, 
and  ought  to  vindicate  to  themselves  the  power  of  the  keys  which  they  have 

received  in  their  ordination  I  certainly  know  not  by  what  necessity 

Master  Beza  should  have  been  compelled  to  resort  to  an  extraordinary  calling. 
For  I  do  not  think  that  either  he,  or  Nicholas  Galasius,  or  any  other  that  may 
have  been  then  present,  not  ordained  by  Romish  bishops,  took  upon  them. '•■circs  the 
ministry  of  the  Word  without  a  legitimate  calling  received  in  the  Churches  of 
Christ."* 

Nor  did  he  hold  that  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches  were 
bound  to  seek  Episcopacy  from  some  Reformed  Episcopal  Church, 
for  he  says :  "  If  they  call  in  the  aid  of  our  men,  and  wish  to  use 
their  advice,  they  can;  but  if  they  do  not,  they  ought  not  to  arro- 
gate to  themselves  any  authority  over  them  and  their  churches, 
but  to  rejoice,  and  congratulate  them  upon  their  conversion,  and 
offer  them  communion  (offerre  societatem)."f 

So  that  here  again  we  have  a  direct  testimony  in  favor  of 
the  validity  of  the  ordinations  of  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal 
Churches. 

Let  us  take  next  the  testimony  of  Dr.  John  Bridges,  then 
(1587)  Dean  of  Salisbury,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Oxford.  He,  as 
we  shall  see,  agrees  with  Archbishop  Whitgift,  that  the  form  of 
church  government  is  a  matter  left  to  the  discretion  of  each 
church.  He  speaks  of  it,  indeed,  in  language  which  we  cannot 
reconcile  with  the  respect  we  feel  due  to  the  primitive  form  of 
church  government ;  but  yet  he  was  one  of  the  most  able  and 
distinguished  prelates  of  that  period. 

With  respect  to  the  question  of  order  in  the  case  of  bishops  and 
priests,  he  expressly  maintains  that  bishops  are  superiors,  "  not 
in  the  office  of  their  order,  yet  in  the  office  of  their  dignity;'' 
(Defence  of  the  Government  Established  in  the  Gliurch  of  England, 
1587,  4to.  p.  287);  and  he  speaks  of  the  Episcopal  state  as  "a 
high  calling,  not  so  much  of  superior  dignity,  as  of  superior  charge 
in  governing  of  God's  Church."    (Ib.  p.  288.) 

And  on  the  subject  of  the  Episcopal  government  of  the 
Church — opposing  the  notion  of  the  Puritans,  against  whom  he 
was  writing,  that  one  certain  form  only  was  allowable — he  writes 
thus : — 

"  If  now,  on  the  other  side,  this  be  not  a  matter  of  necessity,  but  such  as 
may  be  varied,  being  but  a  form  and  manner  of  Ecclesiastical  government,  as 
the" observation  of  this  feast  and  these  fasts  were  of  accustomed  order,  not  of 
necessity ;  then,  so  long  as  it  is  used  in  moderate  sort,  without  tyranny  or 
pride,  nor  anything  contrary  to  the  proportion  of  faith  and  godliness  of  life 


*  Defens.  Tract,  de  div.  Ministr.  Ev.  gradtbus,  &c.  ch.  ii.  pp.  32,  33.  We  translate 
from  the  Latin.  t  Ib.  p.  IS. 


23 


necessarily  maintained  thereby  (for  otherwise,  if  those  fasts  or  this  feast  had 
been  used  to  be  kept  superstitiously,  it  had  been  so  far  forth  to  be  condemned), 
there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  break  the  bond  of  peace,  and  make  such 
trouble  in  the  Church  of  God,  to  reject  the  government  that  in  the  nature 
thereof  is  as  much  indifferent  as  the  solemnizing  this  or  that  day  the  memorial 
of  the  Lord's  resurrection.  And  yet  we  celebrate  the  same  on  the  Sunday 
only,  as  those  Bishops  of  Rome  at  that  time  did.  Which  I  hope  we  do  with- 
out all  offence,  though  we  have  no  precept  in  Scripture  for  it.  And  therefore, 
as  Polycarpus  and  Anicetus,  differing  in  that  point,  notwithstanding  did  not 
violate  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church,  so,  according  to  Irenreus's  rule, 
while  no  such  excessive  superiority  is  maintained  of  us,  as  the  Pope  since  that 
time  hath  usurped,  but  such  as  we  find  practised  in  the  primitive  Church  and 
in  the  very  apostles'  age,  ice  ought  neither  to  condemn,  nor  speak,  nor  think  evil 
of  other  good  Churches  that  use  another  Ecclesiastical  government  than  we  do; 
neither  ought  they  to  do  the  like  of  ours.  Not  that  every  person  in  one  and 
the  same  Church  should  use  this  liberty  of  difference,  without  controlment 
and  restraint  of  the  superior  in  that  Church  wherein  he  liveth.  For,  though 
it  were  lawful  for  one  Church  to  differ  from  another,  being  not  so  tied  to 
uniformity,  as  to  unity  ;  yet  is  it  not  meet  for  one  Church  to  differ  from  itself; 
but  to  be  both  in  unity,  and  be  ruled  also  by  uniformity.  Especially  where 
law  binds  them  to  obedience."    (Ib.  pp.  319,  320.) 

Another  of  the  most  able  prelates  of  our  Church,  and  defender 
of  it  against  the  Puritans,  was  Dr.  Thomas  Cooper,  Bishop,  first 
of  Lincoln,  and  afterwards  of  Winchester.  In  the  year  1589,  he 
published  an  Admonition  to  the  People  of  England,  in  answer 
to  the  attacks  of  the  Puritan  party.  And  thus  he  defends  in 
this  work  the  form  of  church  government  established  in  this 
country  : — 

"  As  touching  the  government  of  the  Church  of  England,  now  defended  by 
the  bishops,  this  I  say.  When  God  restored  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  more 
sincerely  and  more  abundantly  than  ever  before,  under  that  good  young 

prince  King  Edward  VI  by  consent  of  all  the  States  of  this  land,  this 

manner  of  government  that  now  is  used  was  by  law  confirmed  as  good  and 

godly  As  for  this  question  of  church  government,  I  mean  not  at  this 

time  to  stand  much  on  it  Only  this  I  desire,  that  they  will  lay  down  out 

of  the  icord  of  God  some  just  proofs,  and  a  direct  commandment,  that  there 
should  be  in  all  ages  and  stales  of  the  Church  of  Christ  one  only  form  of  out- 
ward government."    (Ed.  Lond.  1847,  pp.  01-03.) 

So  that,  far  from  maintaining  the  necessity  of  the  Episcopal 
form  of  church  government,  he,  on  the  contrary,  challenges  his 
opponents  to  prove  that  any  particular  form  of  church  govern- 
ment is  necessary.    And  he  adds  : — 

"Surely,  as  grave  learned  men  as  most  that  have  written  in  this  time  

do  make  good  proof  of  this  proposition.  That  one  form  of  church  government 
is  not  necessary  in  all  times  and  places  of  the  Church,  and  that  their  Senate 
or  Segniorie  is  not  convenient  under  a  Christian  magistrate." 

And  after  pointing  out  the  different  forms  of  church  govern- 
ment that  prevailed  in  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches,  he 
says  : — 

"  All  those  churches  in  which  the  gospel  in  these  days,  after  great  darkness, 
was  first  renewed,  and  the  learned  men  whom  God  sent  to  instruct  them,  I 
doubt  not  but  have  been  directed  by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  retain,  this  liberty 
that  in  external  government  and  other  outward  orders,  they  might  choose  such 


24 


as  they  thought  in  wisdom  and  godliness  to  he  most  convenient  for  the  state 
of  their  country  and  disposition  of  the  people.  Why,  then,  should  this  liberty 
that  other  countries  have  used  under  any  color  he  wrested  from  us?"  (Ib. 
p.  66.) 

"  The  reason  that  movcth  ns  not  to  like  of  this  platform  of  government  is, 
that  when  we  on  the  one  part  consider  the  things  that  are  required  to  be 
redressed,  and  on  the  other  the  state  of  our  country,  people,  and  common- 
weal, we  see  evidently,  that  to  plant  those  things  in  this  Church  will  draw 
with  it  so  many  and  so  great  alterations  of  the  state  of  government  and  of  the 
laws,  as  the  attempting  thereof  might  bring  rather  the  overthrow  of  the 
gospel  among  us,  than  the  end  that  is  desired."    (Ib.  p.  67.) 

This  of  course  disposes  of  the  doctrine  of  our  opponents,  root 
and  branch. 

We  will  add  but  one  more  authority  for  the  reign  of  Queen 
Elizabeth.  We  began  with  the  Bishop  of  Exeter ;  we  will  end 
■with  one  of  whose  high  authority  as  the  proper  expounder  of 
the  doctrine  of  our  Church  we  have  lately  heard  much — the 
Dean  of  the  Arches.  We  beg  the  attention  of  our  opponents 
to  the  following  statement  of  the  very  learned  and  able  Dean  of 
the  Arches  in  1584,  Dr.  Richard  Cosin.  It  occurs  in  his  answer, 
"published  by  authority,"  to  a  Puritan  work  entitled  An  Abstract 
of  Certain  Acts  of  Parliament.  He  is  opposing  the  notion  that 
"a  set  form"  of  "external  policy  of  discipline  and  ceremonies" 
is  "  set  down  in  Scripture,"  and  he  says  : — 

"Are  all  the  Churches  of  Denmark,  Sweveland,  Poland,  Germany,  Rhetia, 
Yallis,  Tellina,  the  nine  cantons  of  Switzerland  reformed,  with  their  confede- 
rates of  Geneva,  of  France,  of  the  Low  Countries,  and  of  Scotland,  in  all 
points,  either  of  substance  or  of  circumstance,  disciplinated  alike?  Nay, 
they  neither  are,  can  be,  nor  yet  need  so  to  be;  seeing  it  cannot  be  proved,  that 
any  set  and  exact  particular  form  thereof  is  recommended  unto  us  by  the  word  of 
God."    {Answer  to  an  Abstract,  &c.  1584,  4to.  p.  58.) 

Such  are  the  statements  of  some  of  the  best  authorities  for  the 
doctrine  of  our  Church  in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  in  whose 
reign  our  Articles  and  Formularies  were  settled  (with  slight  ex- 
ceptions) in  their  present  form.  And  we  now  challenge  the  Arch- 
bishop's assailants  to  produce  their  authorities  for  the  same  period. 
Can  they  bring  even  one  for  their  doctrine  ?  We  do  not  believe 
it.  And  upon  the  testimonies  of  this  period,  be  it  remembered, 
must  rest  the  proof  of  the  original  and  genuine  doctrine  of  our 
Reformed  Protestant  Church.  That  there  was  a  declension  from 
that  doctrine  afterwards,  in  many  of  our  divines,  is  freely  con- 
fessed. But  that  proves  nothing.  It  can  neither  alter  nor  add 
to  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  as  laid  down  in  her  Formularies 
drawn  up  in  the  time  of  the  divines  from  whom  we  have  been 
quoting.  And  we  shall  give  presently  a  series  of  testimonies, 
from  their  times  to  our  own,  showing  that  their  view  has,  in  the 
main,  been  held  by  a  large  proportion  of  our  greatest  divines  ever 
since  ;  and  farther,  that  even  the  highest  among  our  eminent 
High  Church  divines  (as  they  are  called),  have  never  advocated 
the  extreme  notions  maintained  by  the  Tractarians. 


25 


The  ground  taken  by  our  early  divines,  as  shown  by  the  testi- 
monies above  given,  was,  that  the  Episcopal  form  of  Church 
government  is  the  best  and  the  most  scriptural,  and  comes  recom- 
mended to  us  by  the  practice  of  the  Church  even  from  the  times 
of  the  Apostles,  but  has  not  been  authoritatively  laid  down  by 
Christ  or  his  Apostles  as  of  indispensable  obligation,  and  therefore 
is  not  binding  upon  all  Churches. 

They  did  not  oppose  the  early  Nonconformists,  on  the  ground 
of  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  Episcopal  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment, still  less  of  a  succession  of  bishops  consecrated  by  bishops, 
to  constitute  a  Church.  They  left  such  notions  to  the  Romanists. 
But  they  found  fault  with  them,  as  throwing  a  well-constituted 
Church  into  confusion  and  disorder,  as  causing  needless  schisms 
and  divisions,  and  as  sinfully  disobeying  the  ordinances  of  the 
Supreme  Power  in  the  State,  which  had  established  a  Christian 
Church  agreeable  to  Holy  Scripture  and  Apostolic  practice.  The 
high-flown  claims  of  our  Tractarian  High  Churchmen  to  the  ex- 
clusive admissibility  of  one  system  of  Church  government,  were 
the  weapons,  not  of  the  divines  of  our  Church,  but  of  their  op- 
ponents the  Nonconformists.  The  Genevan  platform  of  Church 
government,  was  with  the  Puritans  that  which  alone  was  conform- 
able to  the  word  of  God.  Every  other,  but  especially  the  Prelati- 
cal,  was  to  be  eschewed  as  an  abomination.  And,  as  to  the  power 
of  the  civil  ruler  in  religious  matters,  they  spoke  of  it — much  as 
the  Tractarians  now  speak  of  it ;  except  that  under  Elizabeth  they 
muttered  in  the  dark  what  under  Victoria  is  proclaimed  in  the 
market-place.*    Thus  it  is  that  extremes  meet. 

Precisely  in  accordance  with  these  views  of  our  early  divines 
are : — 

II.  The  Articles  and  other  Formularies  which  were  drawn  up  by 
the  school  of  theologians  to  which  they  belonged. 

Thus,  in  the  Article  of  our  Church  on  the  subject  of  the  minis- 
try, we  find  it  carefully  worded,  so  as  not  to  limit  a  lawful  ministry 
to  those  that  have  Episcopal  ordination. 

"  It  is  not  lawful  (says  the  Article)  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him  the 
office  of  public  preaching  or  ministering  the  sacraments  in  the  congregation, 
before  he  bo  lawfully  called  and  sent  to  execute  the  same.  And  those  we 
ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  sent,  which  be  chosen  and  called  to  this 
work  by  men  who  have  public  authority  given  unto  them,  in  the  congregation, 
to  call  and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord's  vineyard."  (Art.  23.) 

It  should  seem  hardly  possible  for  one  acquainted  with  the  cir- 
cumstances of  those  times,  to  read  this  Article  and  not  see  that  it 

*  Hence  we  may  remark,  by  the  way,  that  when  we  are  considering  the  events  of  that 
period,  anil  the  apparent  (anil  to  some  extent  real)  absence  of  those  principles  of  tolera- 
tion now  sn  happily  established  among  us,  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  that  the  object  of 
the  early  Nonconformist  was,  not  the  mere  toleration  of  their  own  system,  but  the  utter 
subversion  of  the  system  of  church  government  then  established  by  the  consent  of  the 
sovereign,  the  clergy,  and  the  people,  and  the  substitution  of  their  own  in  its  stead. 
This  was  notoriously  and  confessedly  their  aim;  and  this  it  was  which  infused  so  much 
wrath  and  bitterness  into  the  controversies  of  the  period. 


26 


is  carefully  worded,  so  as  not  to  exclude  the  ministry  of  the  Foreign 
Non-Episcopal  Churches. 

But  a  more  authentic  interpretation  of  this  Article  can  hardly 
he  conceived  than  that  given  by  Thomas  Rogers,  chaplain  to 
Archbishop  Bancroft,  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Articles,  published 
in  1607,  as  "perused,  and  by  the  lawful  authority  of  the  Church 
of  England  allowed  to  be  public,"  and  which  the  Archbishop 
ordered  all  the  parishes  in  his  province  to  supply  themselves  with. 
He  deduces  from  the  Article  the  six  following  propositions  : — 

"  1,  None  publicly  may  preach  but  such  as  thereunto  are  authorized.  2. 
They  must  notbe  silent  who  by  office  are  bound  to  preach.  3.  The  sacraments 
may  not  be  administered  in  the  congregation  but  by  a  lawful  minister.  4. 
There  is  a  lawful  ministry  in  the  Church.  5.  They  are  lawful  ministers 
which  be  ordained  by  men  lawfully  appointed  to  the  calling  and  sending 
forth  of  ministers.  0.  Before  ministers  are  to  be  ordained,  they  are  to  be 
chosen  and  called." 

And  then,  proceeding  to  point  out  the  testimonies  we  have  in 
favor  of  the  truth  of  these  propositions,  he  observes  upon  each,  as 
he  comes  to  it,  that  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches  maintain  it. 
On  the  first :  "  All  this  is  acknowledged  by  the  Reformed 
Churches  ;"  referring  to  the  Helvetic,  Bohemic,  French,  and 
other  Confessions.  On  the  second  :  "  Hereunto  bear  witness  all 
the  Churches  of  God  which  be  purged  from  superstition  and  errors;" 
referring  to  the  same  Confessions.  On  the  third  :  "  Hereunto  do 
the  Churches  of  God  subscribe  ;"  referring  to  the  same  Confessions. 
On  the  fourth  :  "A  truth  also  approved  by  the  Churches ;"  referring 
to  the  same  Confessions.  On  the  fifth :  "  So  testify  with  us  the 
true  Churches  elsewhere  in  the  world ;"  referring  to  the  same  Con- 
fessions. On  the  sixth  :  "And  this  do  the  Churches  Protestant  by 
their  Confessions  approve  ;"  referring  to  the  same  Confessions.* 

And  this  is  not  only  a  testimony  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Article,  but  as  to  the  light  in  which  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal 
Churches  were  then  regarded  by  the  authorities  of  our  Church, 
even  by  so  high  a  Churchman  (to  use  the  common  phrase)  as 
Archbishop  Bancroft. 

Proceeding  to  a  later  period,  we  find  Bishop  Burnet  thus  com- 
menting on  this  Article  : — 

"If  a  company  of  Christians  find  the  public  worship  where  they  live  to  be 
so  defiled  that  they  cannot  with  a  good  conscience  join  in  it,  and  if  they  do 
not  know  of  any  place  to  which  they  can  conveniently  go,  where  they  may 
worship  (bid  purely  and  in  a  regular  way  ;  if,  I  say,  such  a  body,  finding  some 
that  have  been  ordained,  though  to  the  lower  functions,  should  submit  itself 
entirely  to  their  conduct,  or  finding  none  of  those,  should  by  a  common  con- 
sent desire  some  of  their  own  number  to  minister  to  them  in  holy  things, 
and  should  upon  that  beginning  grow  up  to  a  regulated  constitution,  though 
we  are  very  sure  that  this  is  quite  out  of  all  rule,  and  could  not  be  done 

*  "  The  Faith,  I>octrine,  and  Religion ,  &c,  expressed  in  39  Articles,  &c;  the  said 
Articles  analyzed  into  propositions,  and  the  propositions  proved  to  be  agreeable  both  to 
the  written  word  of  God  and  to  the  extant  Confessions  of  all  the  neighbor  Churches 
Christianly  reformed."    1607.  4to. 


27 

•without  a  very  great  sin,  unless  the  necessity  were  great  and  apparent;  yet  if 
the  necessity  is  real  and  not  feigned,  this  is  not  condemned  or  annulled  by 
the  Artiole  ;  for  when  this  grows  to  a  constitution,  and  when  it  was  begun  by 
the  consent  of  a  Body,  who  are  supposed  to  have  an  authority  in  such  an 
extraordinary  case,  whatever  some  hotter  spirits  have  thought  of  this  since  that 
time,  yet  VDt  are  very  sure,  that  not  only  those  who  penned  the  Articles,  but  the 
Body  of  this  Church  for  above  half  an  aye  after,  did,  notwithstanding  those 
irregularities,  acknowledge  the  Foreign  Churches,  so  constituted,  to  be  true 
Churches  as  to  all  the  essentials  of  a  Church,  though  they  had  been  at  first  irre- 
gularly funned,  and  continued  still  to  be  in  an  imperfect  state.  And  therefore 
the  general  words  in  which  this  part  of  the  Article  is  framed,  seem  to  have'been 
desii/ncd  on  purpose  not  to  exclude  them."  (Burnet's  Exposition  of  the  Vl"17  1" 
Articles,  5th  ed.  1746.) 

And  Professor  Hey  justly  remarks,  that  the  expression,  "  who 
have  public  authority  given  unto  them  in  the  congregation," 
"seems  to  leave  the  manner  of  giving  the  power  of  ordaininc 
quite  free  :  it  seems  as  if  any  religious  society  might,  consistently 
with  this  Article,  appoint  officers,  with  power  of  ordination,  by 
election,  representation,  or  lot;  as  if,  therefore,  the  right  to  ordain 
did  not  depend  upon  any  uninterrupted  succession."  (Lectures  in 
Divinity ,  2d  ed.  1822,  vol.  iv.  p.  166.) 

The  same  view  is  taken  of  the  meaning  of  this  Article  by  Bishop 
Tomline,  ordinarily  considered  a  sufficiently  high  churchman. 
(Expos,  of  Art.  ed.  1799,  p.  376.) 

It  is  quite  clear  that  the  words  of  the  Article  do  not  maintain 
the  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination  ;  and  consequently,  as  the 
object  of  the  Article  is  to  show  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
England  on  the  subject,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  Church  of 
England  maintains  it.  No  one,  therefore,  has  a  right  to  put  forth 
such  a  doctrine  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England. 

This  is  the  only  place  in  which  our  Church  touches  the  question 
of  ordination  in  the  abstract ;  and  we  see  that  it  is  carefully 
worded,  so  as. to  be  consistent  with  the  constitution  of  the  Foreign 
Reformed  Churches. 

The  notice  of  the  three  orders  of  the  ministry  as  having  existed 
from  the  times  of  the  Apostles  in  the  Preface"  to  the  Ordination 
Service,  is  simply  the  statement  of  a  fact,  which  does  not  touch 
the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  Orders  of  the  Foreign  Non-Epis- 
copal Churches.  The  defence  of  their  case  rests  upon  the  peculiar 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed.  And  the  recognition 
even  of  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination  for  ministering  in 
the  Church  of  England  was  not  added  till  the  review  after  the 
Restoration  ;  so  that,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  those  who  had 
only  Presbyterian  ordination,  had  previously  been  allowed  to 
minister  in  our  Church.  But  this  irregularity  was  very  properly 
put  an  end  to  at  the  Restoration,  both  by  the  Preface  to  the 
Ordination  Service,  and  also  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity.  (13  14 
Car.  II.  c.  4.) 

We  are  therefore  unable  to  understand  the  following  remarks 
in  a  note  in  the  Bishop  of  London's  Sermons  on  the  Church.  His 
lordship  says : — 


28 


"Our  Reformers,  in  the  Book  of  Consecration,  approved  in  the  36th  Arti- 
cle, insist  strongly  on  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination,  a  point  which,  as 
Bishop  Sanderson  says,  'has  been  constantly  and  uniformly  maintained  by 
our  best  writers,  and  by  all  the  sober,  orderly,  and  orthodox  sons  of  the 
Church  ;'  but  they  do  not  presume  to  say  that  it  is  impossible,  under  any 
circumstances,  for  a  Church  to  exist  without  it.  We  may,  however,  set  their 
formal  approval  of  the  Consecration  Book  against  the  private  opinions  of 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  in  his  answers  to  the  ninth  question  concerning  church 
government."    (P.  G2.) 

Now  the  simple  fact  is,  that  there  is  not  one  word  about  "  the 
necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination"  in  that  book,  as  drawn  up  by 
the  Reformers,  and  sanctioned  by  the  Article.  The  words  that 
relate  to  that  point  were  not  inserted  in  the  book  until  the  review 
in  the  time  of  Charles  II.,  and  then  refer  only  to  the  ministry  of 
the  Church  of  England.  They  do  not  declare  the  necessity  of 
Episcopal  ordination  to  any  valid  ministry  ;  nor  (we  think)  does 
Bishop  Sanderson.  Consequently,  the  last  observation  falls  to  the 
ground ;  and  we  may  observe,  that  "  the  private  opinions  of 
Archbishop  Cranmer"  on  the  point,  as  shown  in  his  Answers  (not 
to  the  ninth,  but)  to  the  tenth  and  eleventh  Questions  on  Church 
Government,  were  (as  we  have  shown)  shared  with  him,  sufficiently 
for  our  present  purpose,  by  many  others  of  the  leading  divines  of 
his  day. 

But  still  farther;  by  the  55th  Canon  of  1604,  all  our  clergy 
are  required,  in  the  bidding  prayer  before,  or  rather  in  the  com- 
mencement of  the  sermon,  to  pray  for  "the  Church  of  Scotland." 
Now  the  Church  of  Scotland,  at  the  time  this  canon  was  passed, 
was  Presbyterian,  as  it  now  is.  And,  consequently,  the  very  men 
who  are  now  protesting  against  the  recognition  of  any  ordinations 
as  valid  but  Episcopal,  and  contending  that  it  is  the  doctrine  of 
our  Church  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  valid  ministry  but 
through  an  apostolically  descended  episcopate,  are  by  canon  bound 
solemnly  to  recognize  in  their  prayers  every  Sunday  the  existence 
of  a  valid  ministry  without  any  such  ordination.  For  a  prayer  for 
the  Presbyterian  "Church  of  Scotland"  clearly  involves  such  a 
recognition. 

Some  of  her  majesty's  predecessors  have  occasionally  ordered 
this  canon  to  be  observed.  It  would  be  but  a  fair  return  (though 
we  are  far  from  desiring  it)  for  the  remarks  in  which  certain 
parties  are  often  indulging  themselves,  that  they  should  be 
favored  with  a  similar  order.  They  are  very  fond  of  appealing  to 
rubrics  and  canons,  when  they  suit  their  purpose ;  and  none,  we 
will  venture  to  say,  would  be  more  unwilling,  consistently,  and 
impartially,  to  carry  them  out  into  practice. 

III.  The  practice  of  our  Church  for  many  years  after  the 
Reformation  entirely  refutes  the  notion  that  she  holds  the  ordina- 
tions of  the  Scotch  and  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches  to  be 
invalid  ;  for,  until  the  period  of  the  Restoration,  ministers  of  those 


20 


Churches  were  admitted  to  the  cure  of  souls  in  our  Church  without 
any  fresh  ordination. 

In  1582  (April  6)  a  license  was  granted  by  the  Vicar-General 
of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (Grindal)  to  a  minister  of  the 
name  of  John  Morrison,  who  had  only  Scotch  orders,  in  the  fol- 
lowing terms : — 

"  Since  you,  the  foresaid  John  Morrison,  about  five  years  past,  in  the  town 
of  Garvet  in  the  county  of  Lothian  of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  were  admitted 
and  ordained  to  sacred  orders  and  the  holy  ministry,  by  the  imposition  of  hands, 
according  to  the  laudable  form  and  rite  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Scotland; 
and  since  the  congregation  of  that  county  of  Lothian  is  conformable  to  the 
orthodox  faith  and  sincere  religion  now  received  in  this  realm  of  England, 
and  established  by  public  authority  ;  we  therefore,  as  much  as  lies  in  us, 
and  as  by  right  we  may,  approving  and  ratifying  the  form  of  your  ordination 
and  preferment  (prafectionis)  done  in  such  manner  aforesaid,  grant  to  you  a 
license  and  faculty,  with  the  consent  and  express  command  of  the  most 
reverend  Father  in  Christ  the  Lord  Edmund,  by  the  Divine  providence 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  to  us  signified,  that  in  such  orders  by  you  taken 
you  may,  and  have  power,  in  any  convenient  places  in  and  throughout  the 
whole  province  of  Canterbury,  to  celebrate  divine  offices,  to  minister  the 
sacraments,  dr.,  as  much  as  in  us  lies,  and  we  may  dejure,  and  as  far  as  the 
laws  of  the  kingdom  do  allow,  &c."  (Slrype's  Life  of  Grindal,  Bk.  2,  c.  xiii. 
p.  271 ;  or  Oxf.  ed.  p.  402.) 

To  this  we  need  only  add  the  testimony  of  Bishop  Cosin,  con- 
fessedly (as  the  phrase  goes)  a  High  Churchman.  He  says,  in 
an  admirable  letter  on  this  subject,  written  from  Paris,  Feb.  7, 
1650,  from  which  we  shall  presently  give  a  large  extract : — 

"  Therefore,  if  at  any  time  a  minister  so  ordained  in  these  French  Churches 
came  to  incorporate  himself  in  ours,  and  to  receive  a  public  charge  or  cure  of 
souls  among  us  in  the  Church  of  England  (as  I  have  known  some  of  them  to 
have  so  done  of  late,  and  can  instance  in  many  other  before  my  time),  our 
bishops  did  not  reordain  him  before  they  admitted  him  to  his  charge,  as  they 
must  have  done,  if  his  former  ordination  here  in  France  had  been  void. 
Nor  did  our  laws  require  more  of  him  than  to  declare  his  public  con- 
sent TO  THE   RELIGION  RECEIVED  AMONGST  US,  AND  TO  SUBSCRIBE  THE  ARTICLES 

established." — (Letter  to  Mr.  Cordel,  in  Basire's  "Account  of  Bishop  Cosin," 
annexed  to  his  "  Funeral  Sermon  ;"  and  also  in  Bishop  Fleetwood's  Judg- 
ment of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  case  of  Lay  Baptism,  2d.  ed.  Lond. 
1712,  p.  52.) 

And  the  same  testimony  is  borne  by  Bishop  Fleetwood,  who 
says  that  this  was  "  certainly  her  practice  [i.  e.  of  our  Church] 
during  the  reigns  of  King  James  and  King  Charles  I.  and  to  the 
year  1661.  We  had  many  ministers  from  Scotland,  from  France, 
and  the  Low  Countries,  who  were  ordained  by  presbyters  only, 
and  not  bishops,  and  they  were  instituted  into  benefices  with 
cure.  .  .  .  and  yet  were  never  reordained,  but  only  subscribed  the 
Articles."  {Judgm.  of  Church  of  Engl,  in  case  of  Lay  Baptism, 
1712.  8vo.  pt.  ii.  Works,  p.  552.) 

If  these  cases  do  not  prove,  that  at  least  our  Church  has  never 
disowned  the  validity  of  the  ordinations  of  the  Scotch  and  Foreign 
Non-Episcopal  Churches,  and  that  her  practice  till  the  Restoration 
was  to  recognize  their  validity,  nothing  would  do  so.    For  Dr. 


30 


Cosin,  who  must  have  been  well  acquainted  with  the  matter 
(having  filled  important  posts  in  the  Church  since  the  year  1616, 
and  been  librarian  to  Bishop  Overal,  and  domestic  chaplain  to 
Bishop  Neale),  speaks  of  it,  not  as  a  custom  with  some  only,  but  as 
the  practice  of  "  the  bishops  "  generally,  and  sanctioned  by  the  law. 

The  last  sentence  in  the  extract  from  Dr.  Cosin,  no  doubt  refers 
to  the  Act  13  Eliz.  c.  12,  in  which  it  was  enacted,  that  any  pro- 
fessing to  be  a  priest  or  minister  of  God's  word  and  sacraments, 
who  had  been  ordained  by  any  other  form  than  that  authorized 
by  Edw.  VI.  and  Queen  Elizabeth,  should  be  called  upon  to  de- 
clare his  assent  and  subscribe  to  the  Articles  of  religion.  The 
parties  more  particularly  in  the  eye  of  the  framers  of  the  Act 
were  probably  those  ordained  by  the  Romish  form,  but  the  appli- 
cation of  the  clause  was  of  course  general. 

True,  as  we  have  already  observed,  after  the  Restoration  this 
was  altered.  The  Act  of  Uniformity  13,  14  Car.  II.  c.  4,  §§  13, 
14,  requires  that  all  admitted  to  any  "  ecclesiastical  promotion 
or  dignity  whatsoever  "  in  our  Church,  or  to  administer  the  Lord's 
Supper,  should  have  had  "Episcopal  ordination."  And  a  clause 
of  a  similar  kind  was  added  in  the  Preface  to  the  Ordination  Ser- 
vices; the  words,  "or  hath  had  formerly  Episcopal  consecration 
or  ordination,"  being  inserted  at  that  time. 

But  this  could  not  affect  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  as  previ- 
ously laid  down  in  the  Articles.  The  Article  declaring  the  doc- 
trine of  our  Church  on  the  subject  of  admission  to  the  ministerial 
office  remained  the  same  as  it  was  when  ministers  of  the  Foreign 
Non-Episcopal  Churches  were  freely  permitted  to  minister  in  our 
churches.  But  the  Episcopal  form  of  church  government  being 
established  in  our  Church,  it  was  very  reasonably  required  by  the 
Act,  that  all  who  held  any  "  promotion  "  in  it  should  have  re- 
ceived Episcopal  ordination,  and  this  especially  at  a  time  when 
the  benefices  of  the  Church  had  been  filled  by  men  attached  to  the 
Presbyterian  form  of  church  government,  and  the  Episcopalian 
ministers  ejected  from  them.  The  state  of  things  at  the  time 
shows  the  object  which  the  Act  had  in  view,  as  no  attempt  had 
been  made  previously  to  get  such  a  law  passed  against  the  admis- 
sion of  ministers  of  Non-Episcopal  Churches.  And  in  the  very 
next  section  of  the  Act  (§  15)  we  find  a  recognition  of  those  com- 
munities as  "  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches."  The  fact  that 
our  Church  requires  all  who  hold  office  in  her  communion  to  be 
ordained  according  to  that  form  of  church  government  which  she 
has  chosen  to  follow,  proves  nothing  as  to  her  doctrine  on  the 
abstract  question  of  the  validity  of  the  Orders  of  Non-Episcopa 
Churches. 

Once  more  ;  if  it  were  the  case  that  our  Church  held  all  bu 
Episcopal  ordinations  to  be  invalid,  and  that  only  those  who  have 
been  ordained  by  bishops  are  entitled  to  preach  the  word  and  ad- 
minister both  the  sacraments,  the  whole  Bench  of  Bishops  have 
been  for  more  than  a  century,  if  not  at  the  present  moment,  in- 


31 


volved  in  the  guilt  of  acting  directly  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  ;  for  the  missionaries  sent  out  as  ordained  ministers  by  the 
Society  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  under  the  es- 
pecial direction  of  the  Bench  of  Bishops,  used  to  be  for  the  most  part 
only  in  Lutheran  orders  ;  and  if  the  practice  has  been  given  up, 
its  discontinuance  must  be  of  very  recent  date. 

We  ought  not  to  omit  to  add,  that  in  former  times  collections 
for  the  relief  of  the  ministers  of  some  of  the  Foreign  Non-Episco- 
pal Churches  were  made  in  our  churches  by  public  authority.  A 
Royal  Brief  was  issued  by  Charles  I.  during  the  archiepiscopate  of 
Archbishop  Laud  himself,  ordering  a  collection  to  be  thus  made 
for  "  the  ministers  in  the  Palatinate,"  which  was  forwarded  to 
the  bishops  by  Laud,  in  a  letter,  concluding,  "not  doubting  of 
your  best  assistance  and  furtherance  in  a  work  so  pious  and  full 
of  charity,  &c."  (Wilk.  Gone.  iv.  516.)  Several  instances  of  such 
collections  might  be  adduced. 

On  these  grounds,  then,  namely,  the  witness  of  our  early  divines, 
the  statements  of  our  Formularies,  and  the  practice  of  our  Church, 
we  maintain,  without  hesitation,  that  our  Church  does  not  hold  the 
doctrine  of  the  exclusive  validity  of  Episcopal  Orders. 

We  admit  that,  in  that  great  alteration  that  gradually  took  place 
subsequently  to  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  in  the  tone  of  the  doctrine 
practically  held  in  our  Church  by  many  of  her  divines,  there  was 
a  great  change  on  this  point  as  well  as  others. 

We  find  Lord  Bacon  complaining,  just  at  the  close  of  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth,  that  some  of  the  clergy  denied  the  validity  of  the 
Orders  conferred  in  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches.  He 
says  :  "  Some  indiscreet  persons  have  been  bold  in  open  preaching 
to  use  dishonorable  and  derogatory  speech  and  censure  of  the 
Churches  abroad  ;  and  that  so  far,  as  some  of  our  men,  as  I  have 
heard,  ordained  in  foreign  parts,  have  been  pronounced  to  be  no 
lawful  ministers."  (Advertisement  touch,  the  Controv.  of  the 
Church  of  Engl.  ;  Works,  ii.  514.  ed.  1819.) 

This  is  another  proof  that  men  so  ordained  were  allowed  by 
public  authority  to  minister  in  our  Church ;  and  also,  no  doubt,  a 
proof  that  there  had  then  arisen  a  school  of  divines  among  us  that 
denied  the  validity  of  their  Orders.  But  whatever  might  be  the 
case  with  some  hot-headed  men  in  our  Church,  we  do  not  find  the 
more  eminent  divines  even  of  that  new  school  taking  such  ground. 
The  utmost  length  to  which  they  go,  is  to  leave  the  question  of  the 
validity  of  such  ordinations  doubtful,  and  decline  the  determina- 
tion of  it;  always,  as  far  as  we  can  recollect,  protesting  against 
fheir  having  any  notion  of  denying  to  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal 
Churches  the  character  and  essential  privileges  of  Churches  of 
Jhrist,  however  imperfectly  constituted  they  might  consider  them  to 
be.  They  left  it  to  the  superior  learning  and  wisdom  of  such  men 
as  D.  C.  L.,  and  the  young  blood  of  the  Bristol  Church  Union,  to 
declare  it  to  be  "  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Church  Catholic," 
and  "its  teaching  in  all  ages,"  "that  the  imposition  of  Episcopal 


32 


hands  is  essential  to  all  valid  ordination;  and  that,  without  such 
ordination,  none  have  authority  to  minister  the  word  and  sacra- 
ments." 

Bishop  Andrews,  for  instance,  might  perhaps  have  felt  a  diffi- 
culty with  respect  to  much  that  our  earlier  divines  had  written 
upon  the  suhject;  but,  nevertheless,  he  says,  when  speaking  on  the 
subject  of  the  proper  form  of  government  for  the  Church,  in  his 
Letters,  in  1618,  to  Du Moulin: — 

"  And  yet,  though  our  government  be  by  Divine  right,  it  follows  not, 
either  that  there  is  '  no  salvation,'  or  that  '  a  Church  cannot  stand  without 
it.'  He  must  needs  be  stone  blind,  that  sees  not  Churches  standing  without 
it:  he  must  needs  be  made  of  iron,  and  hard-hearted,  that  denies  them  salva- 
tion. We  are  not  made  of  that  metal,  we  are  none  of  those  ironsides  ;  we  put 
a  wide  difference  betwixt  them.  Somewhat  may  be  wanting  that  is  of  Divine 
right  (at  least  in  the  external  government),  and  yet  salvation  may  be  had. 
.  .  .  This  is  not  to  damn  anything,  to  prefer  abetter  thing  before  it:  this  is  not 
to  damn  your  Church,  to  recall  it  to  another  form,  that  all  antiquity  was  bet- 
ter pleased  with,  i.  e.  to  ours  :  and  this,  when  God  shall  grant  the  opportunity, 
and  your  estate  may  bear  it."  (Second  Lett,  to  Du  Moulin.  See  Wordsw.  Christ. 
Instit.  vol.  iii.  p.  239.) 

After  him,  Archbishop  Bramhall  took  the  highest  ground  among 
the  eminent  divines  of  that  day  in  favor  of  Episcopacy;  but,  never- 
theless, was  far  from  pronouncing  all  but  Episcopal  Orders  invalid. 
Writing,  in  1643,  against  the  Separatists  (as  the  Dissenters  were 
then  called),  he  says  : — 

"  In  a  difference  of  ways,  every  pious  and  peaceable  Christian,  out  of  his 
discretion  and  care  of  his  own  salvation,  will  inquire  which  is  '  via  tutissima' 

— '  the  safest  way.'  And  seeing  there  is  required  to  the  essence  of  a 

Church — first,  a  pastor  ;  secondly,  a  flock  ;  thirdly,  a  subordination  of  this 
flock  to  this  pastor — where  we  are  not  sure  that  there  is  right  ordination, 
what  assurance  have  we  that  there  is  a  Church  ?  [But  then  he  immediately 
adds]  I  write  not  this  to  prejudge  our  neighbor  Churches.  I  dare  not  limit  the 
extraordinary  operation  of  God's  Spirit,  where  ordinary  means  are  wanting 
without  the  default  of  the  persons.  He  gave  His  people  manna  for  food 
whilst  they  were  in  the  wilderness.  Necessity  is  a  strong  plea.  Many  Pro- 
testant Churches  lived  under  kings  and  bishops  of  another  communion  :  others 
had  particular  reasons  why  they  could  not  continue  or  introduce  bishops  ; 
but  it  is  not  so  with  us  But  the  chief  reason  is,  because  I  do  not  make 

THIS  WAV  TO  BE   SIMPLY  NECESSARY,  BUT  ONLY  SHOW  WHAT  IS  SAFEST,  where  SO 

many  Christians  are  of  another  mind.  I  know  that  there  is  great  difference 
between  a  valid  and  a  regular  ordination  ;  and  what  some  choice  divines  do 
write  of  case  of  necessity ;  and  for  my  part  am  apt  to  believe  that  God  looks 
upon  His  people  in  mercy,  with  all  their  prejudices;  and  that  there  is  a  great 
latitude  left  to  particular  Churches  in  the  constitution  of  their  ecclesiastical 
regiment,  according  to  the  exigence  of  time,  and  place,  and  persons,  so  as 
order  and  his  own  institution  be  observed."  (Serpent-Salve,  \  25.  Works, 
Oxf.  ed.  vol.  iii.  pp.  475,  476.) 

Again,  in  another  subsequent  work  (written  about  1659),  he 
writes : — 

"  I  cannot  assent  to  his  minor  proposition,  that  either  all  or  any  considera- 
ble part  of  the  Episcopal  divines  in  England  do  unchurch  either  all  or  the 
most  part  of  the  Protestant  Churches.  No  man  is  hurt  but  by  himself. 
They  unchurch  none  at  all,  but  leave  them  to  stand  or  fall  to  their  own  Mas- 


33 


ter.  They  do  not  unchurch  the  Swedish,  Danish,  Bohemian  Churches,  and 
many  other  Churches  in  Polonia,  Hungaria,  and  those  parts  of  the  world 
■which  have  an  ordinary  uninterrupted  succession  of  pastors,  some  by  the 
names  of  Bishops,  others  under  the  name  of  Seniors,  unto  this  day.  (I  med- 
dle not  with  the  Socinians.)  They  unchurch  not  the  Lutheran  Churches  in 
Germany,  who  both  assert  Episcopacy  in  their  confessions,  and  have  actual 
superintendents  in  their  practice,  and  would  have  bishops,  name  and  thing,  if 
it  were  in  their  power.  Let  him  not  mistake  himself;  those  Churches  which 
he  is  so  tender  of,  though  they  be  better  known  to  us  by  reason  of  their 
vicinity,  are  so  far  from  being  'all  or  the  most  part  of  the  Protestant 
Churches,'  that,  being  all  put  together,  they  amount  not  to  so  great  a  pro- 
portion as  the  Britannic  Churches  alone.  And  if  one  secluded  out  of  them 
all  those  who  want  an  ordinary  succession  without  their  own  faults,  out  of 
invincible  ignorance  or  necessity,  and  all  those  who  desire  to  have  an  ordinary 
succession,  either  explicitly  or  implicitly,  they  will  be  reduced  to  a  little  flock 
indeed.  But  let  him  set  his  heart  at  rest.  I  will  remove  this  scruple  out  of 
his  mind,  that  he  may  sleep  securely  upon  both  ears.  Episcopal  divines  do 
not  deny  those  Churches  to  be  true  Churches  wherein  salvation  may  be  had. 
"We  advise  them,  as  it  is  our  duty,  to  be  circumspect  for  themselves,  and  not 
to  put  it  to  more  question,  whether  they  have  Ordination  or  not,  or  desert  the 
general  practice  of  the  Universal  Church  for  nothing,  when  they  may  cleat- 
it  if  they  please.  Their  case  is  not  the  same  with  those  who  labor  under  in- 
vincible necessity  .  .  .  Episcopal  divines  will  readily  subscribe  to  the  deter- 
mination of  the  learned  Bishop  of  Winchester  [Andrews]  in  his  Answer  to 
the  Second  Epistle  of  Molinozus  [quoting  the  passage  we  have  given  above]. 
This  mistake  proceedeth  from  not  distinguishing  between  the  true  nature 
and  essence  of  a  Church,  which  we  do  readily  grant  them,  and  the  integrity 
and  perfection  of  a  Church,  which  we  cannot  grant  them  without  swerving 
from  the  judgment  of  the  Catholic  Church."  (Vindic.  of  himself  and  the 
Episcopal  Clergy,  c.  3  ;  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  517,  518.  See  also  his  Replication 
to  the  Bishop  of  Chalcedon,  Answ.  to  Prcf.  \  1 ;  Works,  iii.  25,  26  ;  and  c.  1, 1 2. 
Ib.  09,  70.) 

And  here  we  must  not  omit  to  notice,  in  passing  (what  this  last 
extract  indicates,  and  is  fully  confirmed  elsewhere  in  his  Works), 
that  there  is  another  material  difference  in  his  views  from  those 
of  our  modern  Tractarians,  namely,  that  what  he  specially  contends 
for,  is,  a  succession  of  pastors,  not  necessarily  bishops  consecrated 
by  bishops,  and  that  out  of  these  pastors  one  should  be  appointed 
as  president  over  the  rest ;  and,  therefore,  he  speaks  favorably 
of  the  Lutheran  Churches.  He  says,  elsewhere,  expressly,  of 
"  most"  of  the  Protestant  Churches  "in  High  Germany,"  "all 
these  have  their  bishops,  or  superintendents,  which  is  all  one;"  .  . 
"  three  parts  of  four  of  the  Protestant  Churches  have  either  bishops 
or  superintendents,  which  is  all  one."  (Serpent- Salve;  Works, 
iii.  480,  485.)  He  does  not,  therefore,  insist  so  much  upon  a  suc- 
cession of  bishops  consecrated  by  bishops,  as  upon  the  adoption  of 
the  Episcopal  form  of  government.    But  this  by  the  way. 

We  may  judge,  then,  from  these  passages  of  Bishop  Andrews 
and  Archbishop  Bramhall,  what  would  have  been  the  feelings  of 
the  most  eminent  even  of  our  High  Church  divines  respecting  the 
language  adopted  on  this  subject  by  the  Tractarian  school. 

We  will  now  add  a  few  of  the  numerous  testimonies  that  could 
be  given  from  the  writings  of  our  most  celebrated  divines,  since 
the  close  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign  to  the  present  day,  showing 


34 


the  light  in  which  they  regarded  the  Orders  of  the  Scotch  and 
Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches. 

Of  Archbishop  Bancroft's  opinion  we  may  form  some  judgment 
from  the  countenance  he  gave  to  the  work  of  his  chaplain,  Rogers, 
on  the  XXXIX.  Articles,  already  quoted.  But,  indirectly,  we  have 
a  still  more  express  testimony  of  his  judgment  on  the  subject,  as 
well  as  of  several  of  his  brother  bishops,  in  the  following  passage 
in  Archbishop  Spotiswood's  History  of  Scotland.  The  Archbishop 
relates  that  when,  in  1610,  a  regular  episcopate  was  about  to  be 
conferred  upon  the  Church  of  Scotland,  by  the  consecration  of 
three  Scottish  clergyman  (of  whom  Spotiswood  himself  was  one) 
as  bishops  of  that  Church,  by  the  Bishops  of  London,  Ely,  and 
Bath,  at  the  chapel  of  London-House — 

"  A  question  in  the  mean  time  was  moved  by  Dr.  Andrews,  Bishop  of  Ely, 
touching  the  consecration  of  the  Scottish  bishops,  who,  as  he  said,  '  must 
first  be  ordained  presbyters  as  having  received  no  ordination  from  a  bishop.' 
The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Dr.  Bancroft,  who  was  by,  maintained,  '  that 
thereof  there  was  no  necessity,  seeing  where  bishops  could  not  be  had,  the 
ordination  given  by  the  presbyters  must  be  esteemed  lawful  ;  otherwise,  that 
it  might  be  doubted  if  there  were  any  lawful  vocation  in  most  of  the  Re- 
formed Churches.'  This  applauded  to  by  the  other  bishops,  Ely  acquiesced  ; 
and  at  the  day  and  in  the  place  appointed  the  three  Scottish  bishops  were 
consecrated."  (Spotiswood's  Hist,  of  Church  and  State  of  Scotland,  4th  ed. 
1G77,  fob,  p.  514.) 

Next,  let  us  hear  Archbishop  Usher's  judgment,  given  at  the 
latter  end  of  his  life  :  — 

"  I  have  ever  declared  my  opinion  to  be,  that  episcopvs  et  presbyter  gradu 
tantum  differunt  non  online,  and  consequently  that  in  places  where  bishops 
cannot  be  had,  the  ordination  by  presbyters  standeth  valid  ;  yet,  on  the  other 
side,  holding  as  I  do  that  a  bishop  hath  superiority  in  degree  above  a  pres- 
byter, you  may  easily  judge  that  the  ordination  made  by  such  presbyters  as 
have  severed  themselves  from  those  bishops  unto  whom  they  had  sworn 
canonical  obedience,  cannot  possibly,  by  me,  be  excused  from  being  schisma- 
tical.  And  howsoever  I  must  needs  think  that  the  Churches  which  have  no 
bishops  are  thereby  become  very  much  defective  in  their  government,  and 
that  the  Churches  in  France,  who,  living  under  a  Popish  power,  cannot  do 
what  they  would,  are  more  excusable  in  this  defect  than  the  Low  Countries, 
that  live  under  a  free  State;  yet,  for  the  testifying  my  communion  with  these 
Churches  (which  I  do  love  and  honor  as  true  members  of  the  Church  uni- 
versal), I  do  profess  that,  with  like  affection,  I  should  receive  the  blessed 
sacrament  at  the  hands  of  the  Dutch  ministers,  if  I  were  in  Holland,  as  I 
should  do  at  the  hands  of  the  French  ministers  if  I  were  in  Charentone." 
(Judgment  of  the  late  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  &c.  By  N.  Bernard.  Lond. 
1657,  8vo.  pp.  125-127.) 

No  one  probably  will  question  the  high  value  which  Bishop 
Hall  had  for  Episcopacy,  manifested  in  his  Treatise  on  the  sub- 
ject. Yet,  in  a  Discourse  addressed  to  the  Clergy  of  his  Diocese 
as  Bishop  of  Norwich,  when  speaking  of  the  differences  between 
the  Church  of  England  and  the  Non-Episcopal  Churches  abroad, 
he  writes  thus  : — 


"Blessed  be  God,  there  is  no  difference  in  any  essential  matter  betwixt  the 
Church  of  England  and  her  sisters  of  the  Reformation.    AVe  accord  in  every 


35 


point  of  Christian  doctrine  without  the  least  variation  ;  their  public  Confes- 
sions and  ours  are  sufficient  convictions  to  the  world  of  our  full  and  absolute 
agreement.  The  only  difference  is,  in  the  form  of  outward  administration ; 
wherein  also  we  are  so  far  agreed,  as  that  we  all  profess  this  form  not  to  be 
essential  to  the  being  of  a  Church,  though  much  importing  the  well  or  better 
bein"  of  it,  according  to  our  several  apprehensions  thereof;  and  that  we  do 
all  retain  a  reverence  and  loving  opinion  of  each  other  in  our  own  several 
ways  ;  not  seeing  any  reason  why  so  poor  a  diversity  should  work  any  aliena- 
tion of  affection  in  us  one  towards  another."  {The  Peacemaker,  \  G,  published 
in  1G47.    Works,  by  Pratt,  vol.  viii.  p.  56.) 

So  also  our  learned  Bishop  Davenant : — 

"  In  a  disordered  Church,  where  all  the  bishops  have  fallen  into  heresy  or 
idolatry,  where  they  have  refused  to  ordain  orthodox  ministers,  where  they 
have  considered  those  only  who  are  associates  of  their  faction  and  error  to  be 
worthy  of  holy  orders,  if  orthodox  presbyters  (for  the  preservation  of  the 
Church)  are  compelled  to  ordain  other  presbyters,  I  could  not  venture  to 
pronounce  such  ordinations  useless  and  invalid."  And  this  he  proceeds  to 
apply  to  the  case  of  certain  Protestant  Churches.  {Determ.  quwst.,  &c.  Cant. 
1034,  fol.,  q.  42,  p.  191.) 

And  in  his  Letter  to  Mr.  Dury,  on  promoting  peace  among  the 
Protestant  Churches,  he  says  : — 

"  Moreover,  I  doubt  not  at  all  but  that  the  Saxon  and  Helvetian  Churches, 
and  others  which  either  consent  with  these,  or  those,  acknowledge  themselves 
to  have,  and  to  desire  to  retain,  brotherly  communion  with  the  English,  Scot- 
tish, Irish,  and  other  Foreign  Reformed  Churches.  Surely,  as  concerning  us, 
although  we  consent  not  with  them  in  all  points  and  titles  of  controversial 
divinity,  yet  we  acknowledge  them  brethren  in  Christ,  and  protest  ourselves 
to  have  a  brotherly  and  holy  communion  with  them."  (Prefixed  to  his 
Exhort,  to  broth,  comm.  betwixt  the  Protestant  Churches.  Lond.  1G41.  12mo. 
p.  33.    See  also  the  Treatise  following  it.) 

One  of  the  most  eminent  and  able  divines  of  our  Church  was 
Bishop  Morton,  of  the  17th  century,  bishop  successively  of  Chester, 
Lichfield,  and  Durham.    And  thus  he  speaks  : — 

"Where  the  bishops  degenerate  into  wolves,  there  the  presbyters  regain 
their  ancient  right  of  ordaining  (consecrandi).  I  call  it  ancient,  because  that 
the  Episcopate  and  the  Presbvterate  are,  jure  divino,  the  same,  is  laid  down 
by  Marsilius,  Gratian,  &c."  (Apol.  Cat  hoi.  pt.  1,  lib.  1,  c.  21.  Ed.  2d.  Lond. 
1G0G,  8vo.  p.  74.) 

Another  able  prelate  of  our  Church  at  this  period,  and  a  strenuous 
defender  of  Episcopacy,  was  Dr.  George  Downham.  But  in  a 
sermon  on  this  subject,  after  having  undertaken  to  show  the  jus 
divinum  of  Episcopacy  in  the  sense  of  being  an  apostolical  insti- 
tution, he  guards  himself  against  being  supposed  to  take  the 
ground  which  the  Puritans  took  in  behalf  of  their  platform  of 
church  government,  namely,  that  because  it  was  to  be  found  in 
the  Scriptures,  therefore  it  was  "  perpetually  and  unchangeably 
necessary  in  all  Churches,"  remarking  : — 

"  Although  we  be  well  assured  that  the  form  of  government  by  bishops  is 
the  best,  as  having  not  only  the  warrant  of  Scripture  for  the  first  institution, 
but  also  the  perpetual  practice  of  the  Church  from  the  apostles'  time  to  our 
age  for  the  continuance  of  it ;  notwithstanding  we  doubt  not,  but  where  this 


36 


may  not  bo  had,  others  may  be  admitted ;  neither  do  wc  deny  but  that  silver 
is  good,  though  gold  be  better."  (Serm.  at  Consecr.  of  Bp.  of  Bath  and  Wells. 
1608,  4to.  p.  95.) 

And  in  his  Defence  of  this  sermon,  referring  to  this  passage,  he 
says  :— 

"  Which  objection  and  answer  I  inserted  of  purpose  into  the  sermon,  to  pre- 
serve the  credit  of  those  Reformed  Churches  where  the  Presbyterian  discipline 
is  established,  and  that  thev  might  not  be  exposed  or  left  naked  to  the  obloquies 
of  the  Papists."  (Def.  of  Serm.  d>c,  1611,  4to.  lib.  4,  c.  7,  pp.  145,  146.) 

And  expressly,  on  the  point  of  ordination,  he  says : — 

"Thus  have  I  reported  the  judgment  of  the  ancient  Church  ascribing  the 
ordinary  right  of  ordination  to  bishops,  but  yet,  not  so  appropriating  it  unto 
them  as  that  extraordinarily  and  in  case  of  necessity  it  might  not  be  lawful 
for  presbyters  to  ordain  ;  and  much  less  teaching  (as  the  Papists  imagine) 
absolutely  a  nullity  in  the  ordination  which  is  not  performed  by  a  bishop. 
For  suppose  a  Church  (the  state  of  some  Reformed  Churches)  either  alto- 
gether destitute  of  a  bishop,  or  pestered  with  such  as  the  Popish  prelates  are, 
heretical  and  idolatrous,  by  whom  no  orthodoxal  ministers  might  hope  to  be 
ordained,  we  need  not  doubt  but  that  the  ancient  Fathers  would,  in  such  a 
case  of  necessity,  have  allowed  ordination  without  a  bishop,  though  not  as 
regular,  according  to  the  rules  of  ordinary  church  government,  yet  as  effectual 
and  as  justifiable  in  the  want  of  a  bishop."  (Serm.  pp.  42,  43.) 

Lord  Bacon,  though  a  layman,  may  fairly  claim  a  place  among 
our  witnesses.  We  have  already  noticed  his  rebuke  of  some  of  the 
hot  spirits  of  his  day  for  their  language  on  the  subject ;  but  let  us 
hear  the  impartial  testimony  of  such  a  mind  as  his  on  the  general 
question : — 

"For  the  second  point,  that  there  should  be  but  one  form  of  discipline  in 
all  Churches,  and  that  imposed  by  necessity  of  a  commandment  and  prescript 
out  of  the  word  of  God  ;  it  is  a  matter  volumes  have  been  compiled  of,  and 
therefore  cannot  receive  a  brief  redargution.  I  for  my  part  do  confess,  that 
in  revolving  the  Scriptures,  I  could  never  find  any  such  thing:  but  that  God 
had  left  the  like  liberty  to  the  church  government,  as  he  had  done  to  the  civil 
government ;  to  be  varied  according  to  time,  and  place,  and  accidents,  which 
nevertheless  his  high  and  divine  providence  doth  order  and  dispose.  For  all 
civil  governments  are  restrained  from  God  unto  the  general  grounds  of  justice 
and  manners;  but  the  policies  and  forms  of  them  are  left  free:  so  that 
monarchies  and  kingdoms,  senates  and  seignories,  popular  states  and  com- 
munalties,  are  lawful,  and  where  they  are  planted  ought  to  be  maintained 
inviolate.  So  likewise  in  church  matters,  the  substance  of  doctrine  is  im- 
mutable; and  so  are  the  general  rules  of  government;  but  for  rites  and  cere- 
monies, and  for  the  particular  hierarchies,  policies,  and  disciplines  of 
churches,  they  be  left  at  large."  (Cert.  Consid.  touchimj  Facif.  of  Church; 
Works,  ed.  1819.  vol.  ii.  pp.  529,  530.) 

Our  next  witness  shall  be  one  who  was  confessedly  one  of  the 
most  able  divines  of  his  time,  and  ranks  high,  we  believe,  with 
our  opponents  ;  we  mean,  Dean  Field. 

Discussing  the  question,  "  whether  the  power  of  ordination  be  so 
essentially  annexed  to  the  order  of  bishops,  that  none  but  bishops 
may  in  any  case  ordain,"  he  points  out  what  is  "  implied  in  the  call- 
ing of  ecclesiastical  ministers,"  and  that  the  bishop  of  a  church  is 


37 


only  that  presbyter  -that  is  appointed  to  be  "  specially  pastor  of 
the  place,  who  for  distinction  sake  is  named  a  bishop,  to  whom  an 
eminent  and  peerless  power  is  given  for  the  avoiding  of  schisms 
and  factions  ;"  and  maintains  that  "the  power  of  ecclesiastical  or 
sacred  order  "  "  is  equal  and  the  same  in  all  those  whom  we  call 
presbyters,  that  is,  fatherly  guides  of  God's  Church  and  people ; 
and  that  only  for  order's  sake,  and  the  preservation  of  peace,  there 
is  a  limitation  of  the  use  and  exercise  of  the  same  ;"  adding  : — 

"Hereunto  agree  all  the  best  learned  amongst  the  Romanists  themselves, 
freely  confessing  that  that  wherein  a  bishop  excelleth  a  presbyter  is  not  a 
distinct  and  higher  order  or  power  of  order,  but  a  hind  of  dignity  and  of/ice  or 
employment  only."  "  Hence  it  followed],  that  many  things  w  hich  in  some 
cases  presbyters  may  lawfully  do,  are  peculiarly  reserved  unto  bishops,  as 
Ilieromc  noteth,  rather  for  the  honor  of  their  ministry  than  the  necessity  of  any 
law.  And  therefore  we  read,  that  presbyters,  in  some  places,  and  at  some 
times,  did  impose  hands  and  confirm  such  as  were  baptized,  which,  when 
Gregory,  bishop  of  Rome,  would  wholly  have  forbidden,  there  was  so  great  ex- 
ception taken  to  him  for  it,  that  he  left  it  free  again.  And  who  knoweth  not, 
that  all  presbyters,  in  cases  of  necessity,  may  absolve  and  reconcile  penitents, 
a  thing  in  ordinary  course  appropriated  unto  bishops?  And  why  not,  by  the 
same  reason,  ordain  presbyters  and  deacons  in  cases  of  like  necessity  ?  For  see- 
ing the  cause  why  they  are  forbidden  to  do  these  acts,  is,  because  to  bishops 
ordinarily  the  care  of  all  churches  is  committed,  and  to  them  in  all  reason 
the  ordination  of  such  as  must  serve  in  the  Church  pertaineth  that  have  the 
chief  care  of  the  Church,  and  have  churches  wherein  to  employ  them  ;  which 
only  bishops  have  as  long  as  they  retain  their  standing,  and  not  presbyters, 
being  but  assistants  to  bishops  in  their  churches ;  if  they  become  enemies  to 
God  and  true  religion,  in  case  of  such  necessity,  as  the  care  and  government 
of  the  Church  is  devolved  to  the  presbyters  remaining  Catholic  and  being  of 
a  better  spirit,  so  the  duty  o  f  ordaining  such  as  are  to  assist  or  succeed  them  in 

the  work  of  the  ministry  pertains  to  them  likewise."  "  Surely,  the  best 

learned  in  the  Church  of  Rome  in  former  times  durst  not  pronounce  all  ordi- 
nations of  this  nature  to  be  void.  For  not  only  Armachanus,  a  very  learned 
and  worthy  bishop,  but  as  it  appeareth  by  Alexander  of  Hales,  many  learned 
men  in  his  time,  and  before,  were  of  opinion  that,  in  some  cases,  and  at 
some  times,  presbyters  may  give  orders,  and  that  their  ordinations  are  of  force  ; 
though  to  do  so,  not  being  urged  by  extreme  necessity,  cannot  be  excused 
from  over  great  boldness  and  presumption."  ( Of  the  Church,  ed.  1628  ;  lib. 
3,  c.  39,  pp.  155-157.  See  also  ib.  lib.  5,  c.  27,  p.  500.) 

Another  most  important  witness  on  this  subject  is  Archdeacon 
Francis  Mason,  the  eminent  defender  of  the  Episcopate  of  the 
English  Church  against  the  Romanists.  In  1641,  a  tract  written 
by  him  was  published,  vindicating  "  the  validity  of  the  ordination 
of  the  ministers  of  the  Reformed  Churches  beyond  the  seas  ;"  being 
some  papers  originally  intended  by  him  to  form  part  of  his  cele- 
brated Vindication  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  for  some 
reason  omitted.  Its  publication  in  this  way  has  caused  some 
(especially  Mason's  translator,  Lindsay)  to  cast  a  suspicion  upon 
its  genuineness;  but  not  only  is  it  spoken  of  as  his  by  his  contem- 
porary Dr.  Bernard,  Usher's  chaplain  {Judgment  of  the  late 
Archbishop  of  Armagh,  1G57,  p.  133),  and  first  appeared  in  a 
Collection  of  Tracts  of  which  Usher  was  partly  the  author,  but  in 
a  letter  of  Dr.  Ward  (then  Master  of  Sidney  College,  Cambridge) 
to  Usher,  written  shortly  after  the  publication  of  the  first  edition 


38 


of  Mason's  work  in  1613,  we  find  the  following  passages  :  "  I  pray 
you  inform  me,  what  the  specialties  are  which  are  omitted  in  Mr. 
Mason's  book.  I  would  only  know  the  heads."  And  then  re- 
turning to  the  subject  at  the  close  of  the  letter,  he  says :  "  I  had 
no  leisure  when  I  was  with  you  to  inquire  how  Mr.  Mason  doth 
warrant  the  vocation  and  ordination  of  the  ministers  of  the  Re- 
formed Churches  in  Foreign  parts."  {Parrs  Life  and  Letters  of 
Usher,  1686,  fol.,  p.  34.) 
Now  in  this  tract  Mason  says  :  — 

The  bishop  "in  his  consecration  receiveth  a  sacred  office,  an  eminency,  a 
jurisdiction,  a  dignity,  a  degree  of  Ecclesiastical  pre-eminence."  "  He  hath 
no  higher  degree  in  respect  of  intension  or  extension  of  the  character;  but 
he  hath  a  higher  degree,  that  is,  a  more  excellent  place  in  respect  of  authority 
and  jurisdiction  in  spiritual  regiment.  Wherefore  seeing  a  presbyter  is  equal 
to  a  bishop  in  the  poivcr  of  order,  he  hath  equally  inlrinsical  power  to  yive  orders." 
(Pp.  1G0,  1610 

The  speaker  for  the  Romanist  (for  it  is  written  in  the  form  of  a 
dialogue),  making  the  precise  objection  of  the  Tractarians,  ob- 
serves, "  the  pre-eminence  of  bishops  is  jure  divino  ;"  to  which 
Orthodox  answers  thus  : — 

"  First,  if  you  mean  by  jure  divino,  that  which  is  according  to  the  Scripture, 
then  the  pre-eminence  of  bishops  is  jure  divino;  for  it  hath  been  already 
proved  to  be  according  to  the  Scripture.  Secondly,  if  by  jure  divino  you 
mean  the  ordinance  of  God,  in  this  sense  also  it  may  be  said  to  be  jure  divino. 
For  it  is  an  ordinance  of  the  apostles,  whereunto  they  were  directed  by  God's 
Spirit,  even  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  and  consequently  the  ordinance  of 
God.  But  if  by  jure  divino  you  understand  a  lave  and  commandment  of  God, 
binding  all  Christian  Churches,  universally,  perpetually,  unchangeably,  and 
with  such  absolute  necessity  that  no  other  form  of  regiment  may  in  any  case 
be  admitted  ;  in  this  sense  neither  may  we  grant  it,  nor  yet  can  you  prove  it, 
to  bej«re  divino."  "The  apostles,  in  their  lifetime,  ordained  many  bishops, 
and  left  a  fair  pattern  to  posterity.  The  Church,  following  the  commodious- 
ness  thereof,  embraced  it  in  all  ages  through  the  Christian  world."  (Ib.  p.  163.) 

The  Archdeacon  then  proceeds  to  defend  the  validity  of  the 
ordinations  in  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches,  first  on  the  ground 
of  necessity ;  to  which  the  objector,  after  some  discussion,  ulti- 
mately replies  :  "  Suppose  that  ordination  might  be  devolved  to 
presbyters  in  case  of  necessity  ;  yet  the  necessity  ceasing,  such 
extraordinary  courses  should  likewise  cease.  Why,  then,  do  they 
continue  their  former  practice  ?  Why  do  they  not  now  seek 
to  receive  their  orders  from  Protestant  bishops  ? "  To  which 
Orthodox  replies  :  "  The  Churches  of  Germany  need  not  to  seek 
to  foreign  bishops,  because  they  have  superintendents  or  bishops 
among  themselves.  And  as  for  other  places  which  embrace  the 
discipline  of  Geneva,  they  also  have  bishops  in  effect  ;"  which  he 
proceeds  to  prove  by  showing  that  they  have  among  them  those 
who  have  "  the  substance  of  the  office."  And  he  concludes  : 
"  Thus  much  concerning  the  ministers  of  other  Reformed 
Churches,  wherein,  if  you  will  not  believe  us  disputing  for  the 
lawfulness  of  their  calling,  yet  you  must  give  us  leave  to  believe 


89 


God  himself  from  heaven  approving  their  ministry  by  pouring 
down  a  blessing  upon  their  labors."  (Ib.  pp.  173-176.) 

Another  eminent  divine  of  our  Church  was  Dr.  Crakanthorp  ; 
and  he  likewise  justifies  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches  in 
this  matter  on  the  ground  of  necessity  ;  and  as  it  respects  their 
not  taking  the  first  opportunity  of  restoring  the  Episcopal  form 
of  government,  only  remarks  : — 

"  Optamus  quidem  ex  animo,  ut  cum  lex  ilia  necessitatis  jam  ablata  sit, 
velint  et  omnes  Ecclesise  ad  priscum  et  ab  universali  Ecclesia  constantissime 
observatum  ordinem,  et  ordinandi  modum  redire  ;  clavesque  suas  Episcopis 
restituant:  sed  optamus,  non  cogimus.  Jus  et  imperium  in  eorvm  Ecclesias  nec 
habemus  nos,  nec  desideramus."  (Dcfeus.  Eccles.  Anglic.  Lond.  1625,  4to.  c. 
41,  I  12,  pp.  246,  247.) 

We  must  not  forget  also  to  notice  the  similar  testimony  of  the 
learned  Dr.  Willet,  in  his  Synopsis  Papismi,  of  which  the  fifth 
edition  was  published  in  1634,  under  the  authority  of  the  king's 
letters  patent ;  but  we  must  content  ourselves  with  referring  our 
readers  to  the  work.  (See  5th  Controv.  q.  3,  p.  276.) 

But  one  of  the  most  important  testimonies  as  to  the  doctrine  of 
our  Church  and  her  most  able  divines  on  this  subject,  is  that  of 
Bishop  Cosin,  to  which  we  have  already  referred.  It  occurs  in  a 
letter  written  from  Paris  in  1650  to  a  Mr.  Cordel,  who  scrupled 
to  communicate  with  the  French  Protestants.  To  the  objection 
of  Mr.  Cordel,  that  "  they  have  no  priests,"  Dr.  Cosin  thus 
replies : — 

"  Though  we  may  safely  say  and  maintain  it,  that  their  ministers  are  not 
so  duly  and  rightly  ordained  as  they  should  be  by  those  prelates  and  bishops 
of  the  Church  who  since  the  apostles'  time  have  only  had  the  ordinary  power 
and  authority  to  make  and  constitute  a  priest,  yet  that,  by  reason  of  this 
defect,  there  is  a  total  nullify  in  their  ordination,  or  that  they  be  therefore  no 
priest  or  ministers  of  the  Church  at  all,  because  they  are  ordained  by  those  only 
who  are  no  more  but  priests  and  ministers  among  them  ;  for  my  part,  I  icoidd 
be  loath  to  affirm  and  determine  it  against  them.  And  these  are  my  reasons. 
First :  I  conceive  that  the  power  of  ordination  was  restrained  to  bishops 
rather  by  apostolical  practice  and  the  perpetual  custom  and  canons  of  the 
Church,  than  by  any  absolute  precept  that  either  Christ  or  his  apostles 
gave  about  it.  Nor  can  I  yet  meet  with  any  convincing  argument  to  set  it 
upon  a  more  high  and  divine  institution.  From  which  customs  and  laws  of 
the  Universal  Church  (therein  following  the  example  of  the  apostles)  though 
I  reckon  it  to  be  a  great  presumption  and  fault  for  any  particular  Church 
to  recede,  and  may  truly  say  that^m"  non  oportuit  (when  the  college  of  mere 
presbyters  shall  ordain  and  make  a  priest),  yet  I  cannot  so  peremptorily  say, 
that  factum  non  valet,  and  pronounce  the  ordination  to  be  utterly  void.  For 
as  in  the  case  of  baptism,  we  take  just  exception  against  a  layman  or  a  woman 
that  presumes  to  give  it,  and  may  as  justly  punish  them  by  the  censures  of 
the  Church  wherein  they  live,  for  taking  upon  them  to  do  that  office,  which 
was  never  committed  unto  them  ;  yet,  if  once  they  have  done  it,  we  make  not 
their  act  and  administration  of  baptism  void  ;  nor  presume  we  to  iterate  the 
sacrament  after  them  ;  so  may  it  well  be  in  the  case  of  ordination,  and  the  minis- 
ters of  the  Reformed  C  'ongrrga/ions  in  France;  who  are  liable  to  give  an  account 
both  to  God  and  his  Church  in  general  for  taking  upon  them  to  exercise  that 
power  which  by  the  perpetual  practice  and  laws  of  His  Church  they  were 
never  permitted  to  exercise,  and  may  justly  bo  faulted  for  it,  both  by  the  ver- 
dict of  all  others  who  are  members  of  the  Catholic  Church  (as  we  are  that 


40 


adhere  to  the  laws  of  it  more  strictly  and  peaceably  than  they  do),  and  by 
the  censures  of  a  lawful  meeting  or  general  council  in  that  Church,  which  at 
any  time  shall  come  to  have  authority  over  them.  And  yet  all  this  while,  the 
act  which  they  do,  though  it  be  disorderly  done,  and  the  ordinations  which 
they  make,  though  they  make  them  unlawfully,  shall  not  be  altogether  null  and 
invalid,  no  more  than  the  act  of  baptizing  before  mentioned,  or  the  act  of  con- 
secrating and  administering  the  Eucharist  by  a  priest  that  is  suspended  and 
restrained  from  exercising  his  power  and  office  in  the  Church.  Therefore,  if 
at  any  time  a  minister  so  ordained  in  these  French  Churches  came  to  incor- 
porate himself  in  ours,  and  to  receive  a  public  charge  or  cure  of  souls  among 
us  in  the  Church  of  England  (as  I  have  known  some  of  them  to  have  so  done 
of  late,  and  can  instance  in  many  other  before  my  time),  our  bishops  did  not 
reordain  him  before  they  admitted  him  to  his  charge,  as  they  must  have  done, 
if  his  former  ordination  here  in  France  had  been  void.  Nor  did  our  laws  re- 
quire more  of  him  than  to  declare  his  public  consent  to  the  religion  received 
amongst  us,  and  to  subscribe  the  Articles  established.  And  I  love  not  to  be 
herein  more  wise  or  harder  than  our  own  Church  is,  which,  because  it  hath 
never  publicly  condemned  and  pronounced  the  ordinations  of  the  other  Re- 
formed Churches  to  be  void,  as  it  doth  not  those  of  the  unreformed  Churches, 
neither  among  the  Papists  (though  I  hear  that  the  ministers  here  in  France 
and  Geneva  use  so  to  do,  who  will  not  admit  a  Papist  priest  himself  to  exer- 
cise the  office  of  a  minister  among  them  till  they  have  reordained  him)  ;  for 
my  part,  as  to  that  particular,  I  dare  not  take  upon  me  to  condemn  or  determine 
a  nullity  of  their  own  ordinations  against  them  ;  though  in  the  interim  I  take 
it  to  be  utterly  a  fault  among  them,  and  a  great  presumption,  deserving  a 
great  censure  to  be  inflicted  on  them,  by  such  a  power  of  the  Church  as  may, 
by  the  grace  of  God,  be  at  any  time  duly  gathered  together  hereafter  against 
them,  as  well  for  the  amendment  of  many  other  disorders  and  defects  in  their 
Church  as  for  this  particular  inorderly  ordination  and  defect  of  Episcopacy 
amongst  them.  Besides  that  this  their  boldness,  presumption,  and  novelty 
(in  setting  up  themselves  without  any  invincible  necessity  that  they  had  so  to 
do,  against  the  apostolical  practice  and  perpetual  order  of  God's  Church  till 
their  days)  was  always  faulted,  and  reserved  for  farther  censure,  in  due  time, 
which  they  have  justly  merited.  Secondly.*  There  have  been  both  learned 
and  eminent  men  (as  well  in  former  ages  as  in  this,  and  even  among  the 
Eoman  Catholics  as  well  as  Protestants),  who  have  held  and  maintained  it 
for  good  and  passable  divinity,  that  presbyters  have  the  intrinsical  power  of 
ordination  in  actu  primo ;  though  for  the  avoiding  of  schism  (as  St.  Ilierom 
speaks)  and  preserving  order  and  discipline  in  the  Church,  they  have  been 
restrained  ever  since  the  first  times,  and  still  are  (but  where  they  take  a 
liberty  to  themselves  that  was  never  duly  given  them),  from  exercising  their 
power  in  actu  secundo ;  and  therefore  that  however  their  act  of  ordaining  of 
other  presbyters  shall  be  void,  according  to  the  strictness  of  the  canon  (in 
regard  they  were  universally  prohibited  from  executing  that  act,  and  break- 
ing the  order  and  discipline  of  the  Church),  yet  that  the  same  act  shall  not 
be  simply  void  in  the  nature  of  the  thing,  in  regard  that  the  intrinsical  power 
remained,  when  the  exercise  of  it  was  suspended  and  taken  from  them.  Of 
this  opinion  and  judgment  in  old  time  were  St.  Ilierom  and  his  followers, 
alleged  by  Gratian,  dist.  93  ;  and  of  later  times,  the  Master  of  the  Sentences, 
lib.  iv.  dist.  24  ;  Bonavent.  ibid.  9,  3,  art.  2;  with  other  schoolmen,  as  Au- 
reol.  ibid.  art.  2  ;  and  Anton,  de  Rosellis,  De  Potest.  Impcr.  el  Papali,  part 
iv.  c.  18  ;  and  in  this  later  age,  not  only  Armachanus,  in  Sum.  ad  qi/ast.  art. 
1,  11,  c.  2,  3,  &c.  and  c.  7,  Alphons.  a  Castro  (verb.  Episcopus),  Mich.  Me- 
dina, Be  sacr.  horn.  orig.  lib.  1,  c.  5,  among  the  Roman  Catholics  ;  but  like- 
wise Cassander  in  Consult,  art.  14,  besides  Melancthon,  Clementius  [?  Chem- 
nitius],  Gerardus,  and  Calixtus,  amongst  the  Protestants  :  and  Bishop  Jewel 
(Def.  2,  p.  c.  3,  d.  1,  &c.  9,  div.  1) ;  Dr.  Field,  of  the  Church,  lib.  3,  c.  39  ; 
Hooker,  Ecclcs.  Pol.  lib.  3,  \  3,  ult.,  and  Mason,  among  the  divines  of  our 

*  We  have  taken  the  liberty  of  making  the  second  reason  commence  here  (as  it  evi- 
dently does),  instead  of  at  the  beginning  of  the  previous  sentence. 


41 


own  Church.  All  which  authors  are  of  so  great  credit  with  you  and  me, 
that  though  we  are  not  altogether  of  their  mind,  yet  we  would  be  loath  to  let 
the  world  see  that  we  contradict  them  all,  and  condemn  their  judgment  openly ; 
as  needs  we  must,  if  we  hold  the  contrary,  and  say,  that  the  ministers  of  the 
Reformed  French  Churches,  for  want  of  Episcopal  ordination,  have  no  order  at 
all."  [Our  readers  will  observe  here  what  the  view  of  Bishop  Cosin  was  as 
to  the  sentiments  of  Jewel,  Hooker,  Field,  and  Mason.] 

Dr.  Cosin  adds  several  other  reasons,  with  which,  however,  we 
need  not  trouble  our  readers,  except  the  following: — 

"  If  the  Church  and  kingdom  of  England  have  acknowledged  them  (as  they 
did  in  admitting  of  them  when  they  fled  thither  for  refuge,  and  placing  them 
by  public  authority  in  divers  of  the  most  eminent  cities  among  us,  without 
prohibition  to  any  of  our  own  people  to  go  and  communicate  with  them),  why 
should  we,  that  are  but  private  persons,  utterly  disclaim  their  communion  in 
their  own  country?" 

And,  therefore,  he  concludes  that : — 

"Considering  there  is  no  prohibition  of  our  Church  against  it  (as  there  is 
against  our  communicating  with  the  Papists,  and  that  well-grounded  upon  the 
Scripture  and  will  of  God),  I  do  not  see  but  that  both  you,  and  others  that 
are  with  you,  may  (either  in  case  of  necessity,  when  you  cannot  have  the 
sacrament  among  yourselves,  or  in  regard  of  declaring  your  unity  in  profess- 
ing the  same  religion,  which  you  and  they  do)  go  otherwhiles  to  communi- 
cate reverently  with  them  of  the  French  Church."* 

Similar  sentiments  are  expressed  by  him  in  a  letter  published 
by  Dr.  R.  Watson  (Lond.  1684,  8vo.),  entitled  Br.  Cosin's 
Opinion,  when  Dean  of  Peterborough,  and  in  exile,  for  commu- 
nicating rather  with  Geneva  than  Rome;  and  also  in  his  last 
Will,  inserted  in  the  Preface  to  his  Begni  Anglise  Relig.  et  Gubern. 
Eccles.    Lond.  1729,  4to. 

It  is  almost  unnecessary  to  refer  to  the  Irenicum  of  Bishop 
Stillingfleet  (first  published  by  him  in  1659,  and  a  second  time  in 
1662),  where  he  maintains,  in  a  long  and  elaborate  discussion  of 
the  question,  that  no  particular  form  of  church  government  is  ne- 
cessary, and  points  out  that  "  the  stoutest  champions  for  Episco- 
pacy" had  acknowledged,  "that  ordination  performed  by  pres- 
byters in  cases  of  necessity  is  valid  ;"  "  which,"  he  adds,  "  doth 
evidently  prove  that  Episcopal  government  is  not  founded  upon 
any  unalterable  Divine  right."  (Pt.  ii.  c.  8.) 

Thus  also  speaks  Dean  Sherlock: — 

"I  do  allow  Episcopacy  to  be  an  Apostolical  institution,  and  the  truly 
ancient  and  catholic  government  of  the  Church,  of  which  more  hereafter; 
but  yet  in  this  very  book  I  prove  industriously  and  at  large,  that  in  case  of 
necessity,  when  bishops  cannot  be  had,  a  church  may  be  a  truly  catholic 
church,  and  such  as  we  may  and  ought  to  communicate  with,  without  bishops, 
in  vindication  of  some  Foreign  Reformed  Churches  who  have  none  ;  and 
therefore  I  do  not  make  Episcopacy  so  absolutely  necessary  to  catholic  com- 
munion as  to  unchurch  all  Churches  which  have  it  not."  "  The  Church  of 
England  does  not  deny  but  that,  in  case  of  necessity,  the  ordination  of  pres- 
byters may  be  valid."  (  Vindic.  of  some  Prot.  Principles,  &c,  reprinted  in 
Gibson's  Preserv.,  vol.  iii.  pp.  410,  432.) 

*  The  whole  of  this  letter  is  given  by  Basire  and  Bp.  Fleetwood  (as  referred  to  above). 


42 


So  the  excellent  Dr.  Claget : — 

"  The  Church  of  England  doth  not  unchurch  those  parts  of  Christendom 
that  hold  the  unity  of  the  faith."  (See  Brief  Disc.  cone,  the  Notes  of  the 
Church,  pp.  166-169.) 

Even  the  nonjuror  Archbishop  Sancroft,  in  some  Admonitions 
issued  to  the  clergy  of  his  Province  in  1688,  speaks  in  fraternal 
terms  of  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches,  exhorting  his  clergy — 

"  That  they  warmly  and  most  affectionately  exhort  them  [i.  e.  "  our 
brethren  the  Protestant  Dissenters"]  to  join  with  us  in  daily  fervent  prayer 
to  the  God  of  peace  for  the  universal  blessed  union  of  all  Reformed  Churches 
both  at  home  and  abroad  against  our  common  enemies ;  that  all  they,  who  do 
confess  the  holy  name  of  our  dear  Lord,  and  do  agree  in  the  truth  of  His  holy 
word,  may  also  meet  in  one  holy  communion,  and  live  in  perfect  unity  and 
godly  love."  {D'Oyly's  Life  of  Sancroft,  i.  325  ;  or  Wilk.  Cone.  iv.  619.} 

For  the  sentiments  of  Archbishop  Wake,  to  the  same  effect,  our 
readers  may  consult  some  letters  (written  in  1719)  given  in  the 
4th  Append,  to  Mosheims  Eccles.  Hist,  translated  by  Maclaine, 
Cent,  xviii.  No.  xix.-xxii.;  one  of  which  is  to  "the  pastors  and 
professors  of  Geneva,"  whom  he  addresses  as  fratres  charissimi ; 
and  in  another  (No.  xix.)  he  says : — 

"Ecclesias  Reformatas  etsi  in  aliquibus  a  nostra  Anglicana  dissentientes, 
libenter  amplector.  Optarem  equidem  regimen  episcopale.  .  .  .  et  ab  iis 
omnibus  fuisset  retentum.  .  .  .  Interim  absit  ut  ego  tam  ferrei  pectoris  sim, 
ut  ob  ejusmodi  defectum  (sic  mihi  absque  omni  invidia  appellare  liceat) 
aliquas  earum  a  communione  nostra  abscindendas  credam  ;  aut,  cum  qui- 
busdam  firiosis  inter  nos  scriptoribus,  eas  nulla  vera  ac  valida  sacramenta 
habere,  adeoque  vix  Christianos  esse  pronuntiem."  (Mosheim,  by  Maclaine, 
vol.  vi.  p.  184,  ed.  1826.)  And  in  a  letter  to  Father  Courayer,  dated  July  9, 
1724,  he  again  expresses  the  same  sentiments. — MosJteim,  ib.  p.  30,  Cent, 
xviii.  $  23.) 

In  1764,  we  have  Archbishop  Seeker  following  him  in  the  same 
strain : — 

"Our  inclination  is  to  live  in  friendship  with  all  the  Protestant  Churches. 
We  assist  and  protect  those  on  the  continent  of  Europe  as  well  as  we  are  able. 
We  show  our  regard  to  that  of  Scotland  as  often  as  we  have  an  opportunity." 
(Answ.  to  Mat/hew,  p.  68.  Life  prefixed  to  Sermo7is,  ed.  1770.  p.  lxvi.) 

And,  defending  our  Reformation,  in  one  of  his  sermons  against 
the  Romanists,  he  says  : — 

"  Supposing  we  had  even  acted  without,  and  separated  from,  our  Church 
governors,  as  our  Protestant  brethren  abroad  were  forced  to  do :  was  there 
not  a  cause?  When  the  word  of  God  was  hidden  from  men  .  .  .  when 
Church  authority,  by  supporting  such  things  as  these,  became  inconsistent 
with  the  ends  for  which  it  was  established,  what  remedy  icas  there  but  to  throw 
it  off  and  form  new  establishments?  If  in  these  there  were  any  irregulariiies, 
they  were  the  faults  of  those  who  forced  men  into  them, and  are  of  no  consequence 
in  comparison  with  the  reason  that  made  a  change  necessary."  (Serin,  vol.  vi. 
pp.  400,  401.) 

Still  more  strongly  speaks  the  late  Bishop  Tomline : — 
"  I  readily  acknowledge  that  there  is  no  precept  in  the  New  Testament 


43 


which  commands  that  every  Church  should  be  governed  by  bishops.  No 
Church  can  exist  without  some  government ;  but  though  there  must  be  rules 
and  orders  for  the  proper  discharge  of  the  offices  of  public  worship,  though 
there  must  be  fixed  regulations  concerning  the  appointment  of  ministers; 
and  though  a  subordination  among  them  is  expedient  in  the  highest  degree, 
yet  it  does  not  follow  that  all  these  things  must  be  precisely  the  same  in 
every  Christian  country  ;  they  may  vary  with  the  other  varying  circumstances 
of  human  society,  with  the  extent  of  a  country,  the  manners  of  its  inhabitants, 
the  nature  of  its  civil  government,  and  many  other  peculiarities  which  might 
be  specified.  As  it  has  not  pleased  our  Almighty  Father  to  prescribe  any 
particular  form  of  civil  government  for  the  security  of  temporal  comforts  to  His 
rational  creatures,  so  neither  has  lie  prescribed  any  particular  form  of  ec- 
clesiastical polity  as  absolutely  necessary  to  the  attainment  of  eternal  happi- 
ness. ...  As  the  Scriptures  do  not  prescribe  any  definite  form  of  church 
government,  so  they  contain  no  directions  concerning  the  establishment  of  a 
power  by  which  ministers  are  to  be  admitted  to  their  sacred  office."  And 
therefore,  though  he  advocates  Episcopal  ordination  as  "instituted  by  the 
apostles,"  he  does  not  maintain  it  as  necessary.  (Expos,  of  Art.  23,  ed.  1799, 
pp.  39G,  398.) 

We  close  the  list  with  the  testimony  of  our  late  respected 
Primate,  Dr.  Howley. 

In  a  statement  published  by  his  authority  in  1841,  the  Foreign 
Protestant  Non-Episcopal  Churches  are  spoken  of  as  "the  less 
perfectly  constituted  of  the  Protestant  Churches  of  Europe." 
(Statem.  resp.  Jerusalem  Bishopric,  p.  5.) 

And  in  1835,  a  letter  was  addressed  by  the  same  Prelate,  in 
the  name  of  himself  and  his  "  brother  bishops,"  to  "  the  Moderator 
of  the  Company  of  Pastors  at  Geneva,"  expressing  their  "high 
respect  for  the  Protestant  Churches  on  the  Continent,"  and  speak- 
ing of  the  Genevan  Reformation  as  a  "  noble  achievement,  which 
brought  light  out  of  darkness,  and  rescued  your  Church  from  the 
shackles  of  Papal  domination  and  the  tyrannical  imposition  of  a 
corrupt  faith,  and  a  superstitious  ritual,"  wrought  by  "  illustrious 
men,  who,  under  the  direction  of  Almighty  God,  were  the  instru- 
ments of  this  happy  deliverance,"  "  an  event  not  less  glorious  to 
Geneva  than  conducive  to  the  success  of  the  Reformation."  The 
whole  letter  has  been  so  recently  published  in  the  public  Journals, 
that  we  need  only  give  these  short  extracts. 

Could  it  have  been  supposed,  that,  sixteen  years  after,  his  suc- 
cessor in  the  Primacy  was  to  be  assailed  with  a  storm  of  vitupera- 
tion, and  even  branded  by  an  Archdeacon  of  his  Province  as  a 
heretic,  for  merely  saying  that  the  Church  of  England  does  not 
deny  the  validity  of  the  Orders  of  such  Churches? 

But  in  those  sixteen  years  a  new  school  has  sprung  up  in  our 
Church,  chiefly  composed  of  its  younger  members,  who  having 
formed  in  their  own  minds,  from  their  perusal  of  Romish  and 
Tractarian  works,  a  Procrustean  standard  of  ecclesiastical  doctrine 
and  polity,  are  apparently  endeavoring,  in  the  total  disregard  of 
the  manifest  tenets  of  our  Church,  to  force  upon  it  a  position  and 
character  which  its  whole  history  repudiates.  The  right  of  private 
judgment  has  rarely  been  exercised  with  more  unbridled  arrogance 
than  by  those  among  us  who  professedly  disown  it.    Under  the 


44 


thin  veil  of  high-sounding  phrases,  "  the  Church,"  "Catholic  con- 
sent," and  such  like, the  Romish  dreamsof  hot-headed  or  prejudiced, 
and  often  very  ill-informed  individuals,  are  urged  upon  the  public 
as  indubitable  verities,  which  it  were  a  sin  to  suppose  that  our 
Church  does  not  hold  ;  and  by  which  all  who  differ  from  them, 
from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  are  to  be  judged.  We  say  de- 
liberately, even  as  to  the  heads  of  the  party,  very  ill-informed  in- 
dividuals ;  and  on  this  ground,  that  whatever  may  be  ttyeir  learn- 
ing in  other  respects  (and  it  is  too  often  to  be  seen  principally  in 
the  trifles  of  the  Church  ceremonial),  they  seem  rather  to  avoid 
than  examine  those  sources  of  information  which  best  show  what 
the  doctrine  of  our  Church  really  is,  as  was  abundantly  proved  in 
the  Gorham  case :  and  palm  upon  our  Church  views  and  doctrines 
which  they  have  gathered  by  their  private  judgment  from  antiquity. 

But  our  space  warns  us  that  we  must  restrain  our  pen.  We 
deeply  regret  that  our  Church  should  be  continually  suffering  from 
these  internal  dissensions.  But  we  fear  that,  if  she  is  still  to  re- 
main a  witness  for  Protestant  truth,  a  conflict  awaits  her,  both 
from  internal  and  external  foes,  more  severe  than  any  she  has  yet 
encountered.  Would  that  we  could  see  a  more  lively  conscious- 
ness of  this  coming  struggle  manifested  among  those,  lay  and 
clerical,  who,  under  God,  must  be  the  instruments  for  her  preser- 
vation. Few,  however,  seem  to  realize  the  true  character  of  the 
present  times. 

Meanwhile,  no  fear  need  be  entertained  that  the  public  discussion 
of  Tractarian  dogmas  will  show  that  our  Church  has  a  leaning 
toward  them.  Just  the  contrary  will,  we  are  convinced,  be  the 
case.  And  we  leave  the  Archbishop's  assailants  quietly  to  weigh 
the  testimonies  given  above,  and  judge  for  themselves  how  much 
they  are  likely  to  gain  by  their  recent  outbreak — an  outbreak  as 
unprecedented  for  its  contempt  for  constituted  authorities  as  it  is 
destitute  of  even  the  shadow  of  an  excuse  for  it. 


A  REPLY 

TO 

ARCHDEACON  CHURTON 

AND 

CHANCELLOR  HARINGTON, 

ON  THE 

TEEM  "CHURCH  OE  SCOTLAND 

IN  THE 

FIFTY-FIFTH  CANON, 

AND  ON 

NON-EPISCOPAL  ORDINATIONS. 

BY 

W.  GOODE,  M.A.,  F.S.A., 

Rector  of  Allhallows  the  On  of  awl  L'.ss,  London. 


Scconb  (Ebition. 


NEW  YORK: 
A.  D.  F.  RANDOLPH,  683  BROADWAY. 
1853. 


CONTENTS. 


Pages 

I.  ON  THE  TERM  "  CHURCH  OF  SCOTLAND"  IN  THE 
FIFTY-FIFTH  CANON. 
REPLY  TO  ARCHDEACON  CHIJRTON    -       -       -      3  to  13 
REPLY  TO  CHANCELLOR  HARINGTON       -       -     14  to  13 
II.  ON  NON-EPISCOPAL  ORDINATIONS,  IN  REPLY  TO 

CHANCELLOR  HARINGTON      -       -      -      -     19  to  32 


REPLY  TO  ARCHDEACON  CHURTON  AND 
CHANCELLOR  HARINGTON,  ON,  &c. 


I.  ON  THE  TERM  "CHURCH  OF  SCOTLAND"  IN  THE 
FIFTY-FIFTH  CANON. 

The  following  Letter  appeared  in  the  Guardian  of  Dec.  3, 
1851,  in  reply  to  one  by  Archdeacon  Churton  in  the  same  paper 
on  Nov.  19  (which  I  give  below),*  on  the  meaning  of  the  term 
"  Church  of  Scotland  "  in  the  55th  Canon  :— 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Guardian. 

Sir  :  There  is  an  old  saying  that,  tua  res  agitur  paries  cum 
vroximus  ardet.  On  this  principle,  even  if  not  on  general  grounds, 
you  will  perhaps  allow  me  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  an  article  in 
your  last  Number,  for  November  19. 

Your  correspondent,  Archdeacon  Churton,  finds  fault,  in  terms 
of  positive  ridicule,  with  "  Bishop  Lee,"  (as  he  calls  him,)  for  say- 
ing, that  in  1601,  when  our  Convocation  passed  the  55th  Canon, 

*  To  the  Editor  of  the  Guardian. 

«  On  peut  licitement  employer  des  termes  equivoques,  quand  quelque  cause  raison- 
nable  y  engage."— Pt-Ve  Lacroix. 

Sir  •  In  the  notices  which  I  have  seen  in  your  paper  and  elsewhere,  or  Bishop  Lee  s 
late  doctrinal  exposition  to  the  clergy  of  Lancashire,  I  have  not  discovered  any  allusion 
to  his  Lordship-s  new  historical  lights  on  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Bishop  Lee  is  re- 
ported, in  your  paper  of  November  12,  to  have  said  that  «  the  Church  ol  England,  in 
the  55th  Canon,  enjoined  the  people  to  pray  for  the  Churches  of  England,  Scotland,  and 
Ireland  :  although  the  Church  was  then,  as  now,  Presbyterian,  and  Episcopacy  was  not 
as  vet  established."  His  Lordship  means,  of  course,  the  Church  ol  Scotland;  not  ol 
England  or  Ireland. 

As  it  is  no  special  part  of  my  duty  to  notice  what  may  be  said  to  the  clergy  on  the 
Other  side  of  Blackstone  edge,  I  have  waited  a  few  days,  hoping  that  another  hand  might 
have  corrected  this  ingenious  equivocal  statement.  But  as  it  seems  that  no  such  correc- 
tion has  yet  been  administered,  though  no  doubt  many  of  the  learned  clergy  ol  Lan- 
cashire must  have  smiled  to  themselves  at  the  humor  of  the  passage,  I  hope  you  will  allow 
ine  to  offer  a  brief  comment,  which  may  serve  to  bring  it  out  of  its  present  obscurity. 

The  Church  of  Scotland,  in  1G04,  was  about  as  much  Presbyterian  as  the  Diocese  of 
Manchester  was  in  1S4S,  during  the  interregnum  before  the  consecration  of  the  present 
learned  and  moderate  Prelate.  As  early  as  159S,  if  not  earlier,  an  Act  of  the  Scottish 
Parliament  bad  secured  to  the  Bishops,  and  other  ecclesiastical  Prelates  to  be  appointed 
by  the  king,  their  seats  and  voices  in  Parliament.  Before  1600,  there  appear  to  have 
been  Bishops  nominated  to  the  Sees  of  Aberdeen,  Argyle,  Dunkcld,  Brechin,  and  Dum- 
blane  David  Lindsay  and  George  Gladstone  were  in  that  year  nominated  respectively 
to  the  Sees  of  Ross  and  Caithness.  True,  these  Bishops- Designate  were  not  consecrated 
till  a  few  years  later  ;  but  when  the  law  of  the  land  had  recognized  their  estate,  and  the 
men  were"  known  and  appointed,  it  appears  to  me  a  verbal  shuffle,  and  something  more 
(unintentional,  of  course),  to  say  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  "  was  then,  as  now,  Pres- 
byterian." 

Yours  very  faithfullv, 

EDVV.  CHURTON. 

York,  Not.  17,  1851. 


4 


bidding  the  people  to  pray  for  the  Church  of  Scotland,  that 
Church  "  was  then,  as  now,  Presbyterian,  and  Episcopacy  was  not 
as  yet  established." 

Now  having,  more  than  once,  publicly  made  the  same  statement, 
I  feel  not  a  little  implicated  in  the  censure  here  so  confidently  put 
forward  by  the  Archdeacon  against  the  Bishop.  And  I  trust  you 
will  permit  me  briefly  to  state  the  grounds  on  which  I  have  made 
the  remark  that  has  called  forth  the  Archdeacon's  ridicule.  I  say 
ridicule ;  for  so  confident  is  he  of  the  goodness  of  his  cause,  and  his 
own  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  subject,  that  he  jests  about 
"his  Lordship's  new  historical  lights,"  and  how  "no  doubt  many 
of  the  learned  clergy  of  Lancashire  must  have  smiled  to  themselves 
at  the  humor  of  the  passage  ;"and  he  begs  "  to  offer  a  brief  com- 
ment "  to  point  out  the  truth  of  the  case  ;  and  his  comment  is, 
that  in  1598,  if  not  earlier,  the  Scottish  Parliament  had  given  seats 
and  voices  in  Parliament  to  the  bishops  appointed  by  the  king,  and 
before  lb'00  bishops  had  been  appointed  to  several  places,  though 
they  were  not  consecrated  till  1610.  The  inference,  I  suppose,  is 
that  the  Church  of  Scotland  had  a  true  Episcopate  in  1604,  and 
consequently  was  not  then  under  a  Presbyterian  form  of  church 
government.  What  "  the  learned  clergy  of  Lancashire  "  may 
think  of  this  reply  to  the  Bishop's  statement,  I  will  not  venture  to 
conjecture;  but  there  are  some,  I  suspect,  who  will  see  much  more 
"humor"  in  it  than  in  the  remark  which  called  it  forth. 

A  brief  statement  of  the  facts  of  the  case  will  enable  the  reader 
to  judge  of  the  correctness  of  this  comment;  and  I  shall  take  them 
almost  wholly  from  an  author  to  whom  the  Archdeacon  cannot 
object,  namely,  Mr.  Lawson. 

On  the  24th  of  August,  15G0,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope  in 
Scotland  was  abolished,  and  no  bishop  or  other  prelate  was  to  use 
any  jurisdiction  thereafter  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome's  authority. 
{Lawson  s  Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland,  p.  24.)  And  the  Romish 
Hierarchy  was  succeeded  by  what  was  called  the  Superintendent 
System  of  church  government,  the  supreme  ecclesiastical  authority 
vesting  in  a  General  Assembly  of  the  Protestants,  including  minis- 
ters and  laymen.  {Ib.  80,  et  seq.)  That  is,  such  was  the  system 
practically  adopted,  for  "  no  form  of  church  government,  not  even 
the  Superintendent  System,  was  legally  acknowledged."  {Ib.  96.) 

But  as  the  bishops  and  other  prelates  were  considered  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  Parliament  of  the  kingdom,  they  were  allowed  to 
sit  and  vote,  though  deprived  of  their  right  to  exercise  their  clerical 
functions.  And  when  the  Romish  bishops  were  nearly  all  dead, 
the  Government  of  King  James  became  anxious  lest  the  extinction 
of  one  branch  of  the  Legislature,  the  Spiritual  Estate,  might  cause 
the  legality  of  their  acts  to  be  questioned  ;  and  therefore,  in  1571, 
"  certain  of  the  Protestant  preachers  were  allowed  to  vote  in  the 
Parliament  as  the  successors  of  the  defunct  prelates,  and  officially 
appointed  bishops  of  the  vacant  sees."  {Ib.  96,  97.)  The  first 
appointed  was  John  Douglas,  who  was  "  nominated  Archbishop  on 
Saturday,  the  18th  of  August,  1571,  and  as  such  he  attended  the 


5 


Parliament,  or  Convention,  held  at  Stirling,  on  the  28th  of  that 
month,"  where  he  voted  as  Archbishop  of  St.  Andrews.  (Ib.  98.) 
"  The  'consecration'  was  performed  by  the  lay  Bishop  of  Caithness, 
Spotiswood,  and  David  Lindsay,  of  Leith."  After  a  sermon  by 
Knox,  and  an  address  by  Winram,  Douglas  "  declared  that  he 
would  be  '  obedient  to  the  Kirk,  and  that  he  should  usurp  no  power 
over  the  same,'1  and  that  he  would  '  take  no  more  power  titan  the 
Council  and  General  Assembly  of  the  Kirk  should  prescribe.'  The 
lay  Bishop  of  Caithness,  Spotiswood,  and  Lindsay,  then  'laid 
their  hands  and  embraced  the  said  rector,  Mr.  John  Douglas,  in 
token  of  admission  to  the  bishopric'  Such  was  the  '  consecration' 
which  those  three  men  had  the  presumption  to  perpetrate  at  the 
commencement  of  this  spurious  Episcopacy ;  one  of  them,  the 
Bishop  of  Caithness,  let  it  be  recollected,  never  in  holy  orders  ; 
and  even  Lindsay's  ordination  is  doubtful — at  least  it  is  so  con- 
sidered by  Bishop  Keith."  "  Several  of  the  bishoprics  were 
speedily  filled  by  the  leading  men  among  the  Reformed  preachers, 
and  this  novel  'Episcopacy,'  or  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  even 
worse  than  the  Superintendent  System,  and  more  objectionable 
than  Presbyterianism,  because  it  was  the  mere  shadow  without  the 
substance,  was  soon  carried  completely  into  operation."  (Ib.  108, 
110.)  "  The  situation  of  the  titular  bishops,  and  the  domina- 
tion over  them  by  the  General  Assembly,  are  evident  from  sundry 
resolutions  at  this  meeting  [i.  e.  of  the  General  Assemby  in  1574]. 
It  was  declared  that  the  'jurisdiction  of  bishops  in  their  ecclesias- 
tical function  shall  not  exceed  that  of  superintendents,  which  they 
previously  had,  and  still  have,'  and  that,  like  them,  the  said 
bishops  shall  be  subject  to  the  discipline  of  the  General  Assembly, 
as  members  thereof."    (Ib.  129.) 

So  that  not  only  was  there  the  absence  of  anything  like  conse- 
cration to  their  office,  but  the  episcopal  office  itself  ivas  not  given 
them ;  in  fact,  scarcely  more  than  the  name.  What  sort  of  an 
Episcopate  this  was,  I  leave  the  Archdeacon  to  determine. 

But  farther ;  while  this  titular  Episcopate  was  called  into  being 
by  the  Court  for  political  purposes,  the  General  Assembly  was 
progressing  towards  a  regular  Presbyterian  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment. In  the  General  Assembly  of  1581,  "  the  Presbyterian 
system,  as  subsequently  known  in  Scotland,  was  developed,"  (Ib. 
178,)  and  in  the  Parliament  of  1592  the  system  of  the  Presbyte- 
rians was  ratified  as  an  establishment.  (Ib.  239,  240.)  But  "  the 
king  and  council,  though  they  were  pleased  to  confer  on  Presby- 
tery the  advantages  of  an  establishment,  had  not  the  least  intention 
of  relinquishing  or  repressing  the  titular  Episcopate  as  one  of  the 
three  Estates.  In  1597  an  Act  was  passed,  declaring  that  '  all 
ministers  provided  to  prelacies  should  have  votes  in  Parliament.'  " 
(Ib.  241.)  But  this  was  to  be  "  without  prejudice  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion and  discipline  of  the  Kirk  establishment  by  Acts  of  Parlia- 
ment."   (Ib.  242.) 

So  that  the  state  of  the  case  at  that  time  was  this.  The  form 
of  church  government  was  Presbyterian,  established  by  the  law 


6 


of  the  land;  but  it  being  thought  necessary  that  the  Spiritual 
Estate  should  be  represented  in  Parliament,  the  king  had  the  power 
to  give  certain  of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  (to  say  nothing  now 
of  laymen)  the  revenues  of  the  old  Episcopal  Sees,  call  them 
Bishops,  and  so  entitle  them  to  seats  and  votes  in  Parliament. 
But  how  far  the  Episcopal  office  was  given  them,  the  Archdeacon 
may  judge  for  himself,  from  the  following  rules  laid  down  in  the 
conference  at  Falkland,  in  1598  (where  commissioners  from  the 
various  synods  met  the  king  to  discuss  these  matters),  and  ratified 
by  the  General  Assembly  that  met  at  Montrose  in  1G00,  where  the 
king  himself  was  present. 

"5.  That  he  [the  bishop  appointed  by  the  king]  should  be  bound  to  attend 
the  congregation  faithfully  at  which  he  should  be  appointed  minister,  in  all 
the  points  of  a  pastor,  and  be  subject  to  the  trial  and  censure  of  his  own  Pres- 
bytery or  Provincial  Assembly,  as  any  other  of  the  ministers  that  bear  no 
commission.  G.  In  the  administration  of  discipline,  &c,  he  should  neither 
usurp  nor  claim  to  himself  any  more  power  or  jurisdiction  than  any  of  his 
brethren,  except  he  bo  employed,  under  pain  of  deprivation,  &c.  7.  In  Pres- 
byteries, Provincial  and  General  Assemblies,  he  should  behave  himself  in  all 
things  as  one  of  the  brethren,  and  be  subject  to  their  censure.  8.  At  his 
admission  to  the  office  of  commissionary  [so  they  called  these  prelates],  he 
should  swear  and  subscribe  all  these  and  other  points  necessary  ;  otherwise 
he  should  not  be  admitted.  9.  If  it  should  happen  him  to  be  deposed  from 
the  ministry,  by  the  Presbytery,  Synod,  or  General  Assembly,  he  should  lose 
his  place  in  Parliament,  and  the  benefice  be  void  ipso  f ado."  (Spotisicood's 
Hist.  bk.  vi.,  a.  1598,  pp.  453,  454,  ed.  1677. 

When  these  rules  were  ratified  by  the  General  Assembly,  in 
1G00,  the  two  following  were  added  :  "That  he  who  was  admitted 
should  yearly  render  an  account  of  his  commission  to  the  General 
Assembly,  and  laying  the  same  down  at  their  foot  should  be  there- 
in continued;  or  if  his  Majesty  and  the  Assembly  did  think  fit  to 
employ  another,  he  should  give  place  to  him  that  was  appointed;" 
and  "  that  they  who  had  voice  in  Parliament  should  not  have  place 
in  the  General  Assembly,  unless  they  were  authorized  by  a  com- 
mission from  the  Presbyters  [Presbytery]  whereof  they  were  mem- 
bers." (Ib.  458.) 

Such  were  the  "  bishops"  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  in  1600, 
and  such  only  they  remained  in  1G04.  Will  the  Archdeacon  deny 
that  the  Church  of  Scotland,  under  such  circumstances,  was  under 
a  Presbyterian  form  of  government  ?  That  some  of  the  stifler 
sort  of  Presbyterians,  both  then  and  since,  found  fault  with  it, 
is  no  proof  of  its  not  being  a  species  of  Presbyterian  form  of 
government.  And  it  was  a  form  which  the  "  bishops"  adhered  to. 
So  that  if  the  Church  to  which  the  55th  Canon  refers  was  the 
Church  to  which  these  "bishops"  belonged  (which  I  suppose  will 
not  be  denied),  it  was  a  Church  under  a  Presbyterian  form  of  gov- 
ernment. 

It  is  worth  observing,  that  when,  in  1610,  three  of  these  "bish- 
ops" presented  themselves,  by  King  James's  direction,  to  the  Eng- 
lish prelates  for  consecration,  Bishop  Andrews  suggested  a  doubt 
whether  they  ought  to  be  recognized  as  having  any  orders  at  all, 
even  those  of  deacon  and  priest,  but  was  overruled  by  Archbishop 


7 


Bancroft,  who  said  that  "where  hishops  could  not  he  had,  the  or- 
dination given  by  the  presbyters  must  be  esteemed  lawful ;  other- 
wise, that  it  might  be  doubted  if  there  were  any  lawful  vocation 
in  most  of  the  Reformed  Churches."  This  we  have  on  the  autho- 
rity of  Archbishop  Spotiswood  [Hist.  514),  who  was  himself  one 
of  the  three  then  consecrated.  And  this  fact,  I  may  observe, 
completely  answers  the  objections  raised  against  the  possibility  of 
the  55th  Canon  applying  to  a  Presbyterian  community  from  the 
supposed  views  of  Bancroft  and  others. 

Most  justly,  therefore,  upon  the  Archdeacon's  own  principles, 
does  Mr.  Lawson  make  the  following  remarks  upon  this  titular 
Episcopate  : — 

"  The  objection  to  it  which  must  occur  to  the  sound  Churchman  is,  that  it 
was  altogether  a  vain  and  futile  system  ;  that  it  was  no  Episcopacy  at  all,  or 
so  only  in  name;  that  the  '  consecration'  of  Douglas  and  others  by  unautho- 
rized men,  one  of  whom  was  a  layman,  was  disgraceful,  outrageous,  and  most 
sinful ;  and  that  the  whole  was  a  political  arrangement  to  serve  particular 
purposes,  and  introduce  a  set  of  men  into  the  Parliaments  to  represent  the 
defunct  and  absent  prelates  of  the  fallen  hierarchy,  assuming  their  ecclesias- 
tical titles,  and  pretending  to  be  invested  with  functions  which  it  was  impos- 
sible to  obtain  without  consecration  from  bishops  regularly  and  canonically 

consecrated  Even  the  people  ridiculed  the  persons  '  inaugurated' 

by  such  men  as  the  lay  bishops  of  Caithness,  Winram,  and  Lindsay.  They 
were  long  known  by  the  very  appropriate  and  significant  sobriquet  of  Tiilchan 
Bishops,  derived  from  a  practice  then  prevalent  of  stuffing  a  calf's  skin  with 
straw,  and  placing  it  before  a  cow,  to  induce  the  animal  to  give  milk,  which 
figure  was  called  a  tulckan — a  term  derived  from  a  word  signifying  a  model, 
or  a  close  resemblance.  The  tulchan  hierarchy  was  a  complete  deception, 
and  was  merely  one  of  titles  connected  with  personal  arrangements  and  poli- 
tical expediency,  to  say  nothing  of  its  gross  perversion  of  the  real  Episcopate, 
and  its  schismatical  profanity.  The  men  who  figured  in  it  as  titulars  or 
tulchans  ought  never  to  have  been  recognized  by  Keith  in  his  enumeration  of 
the  Scottish  bishops."  (Ib.  Ill,  112.)     "  The  truth  is,  that  in  Scotland  the 

CHURCH    CATHOLIC    BECAME    EXTINCT    FROM    TnE    REFORMATION    TO    1G10  ;  for 

neither  can  the  ill-digested  Superintendent  System,  with  its  array  of  'minis- 
ters, exhorters,  and  readers,'  nor  the  miserable  titular  Episcopacy  incorpo- 
rated with  it,  nor  the  human  inventions  introduced  by  Andrew  Melville, 
under  the  name  of  Presbyterianism,  nor  all  three  put  together,  be  considered 
as  entitled  to  any  connection  with  the  true  and  Apostolic  Church."  (76.  133.) 
The  titulars  "  were  merely  nominal  bishops  for  political  or  party  purposes, 
unconsecratod,  and  of  no  higher  authority  than  their  lay  preachers."  lib. 
144.)  "The  titular  Episcopate  was  a  matter  of  mere  indifference — a  worldly 
arrangement  for  political  purposes,  the  loss  of  which  involved  nothing  of  im- 
portance, and  utterly  indefensible  by  any  arguments — opposed  to  scriptural 
authority,  apostolical  practice,  and  primitive  antiquity."  (Ib.  242.) 

Such  are  the  statements  of  Mr.  Lawson  respecting  this  titular 
Episcopate ;  and  whatever  difference  of  opinion  there  may  be 
between  what  are  called  High  and  Low  Churchmen  as  to  some 
points  in  these  statements,  I  suppose  both  will  agree  that  a  grant 
of  the  name  and  revenues,  and  certain  privileges  of  the  Episcopate, 
by  the  Civil  Power  for  political  convenience,  can  never  make  a 
bishop.  Such  a  notion  would  indeed  be  Erastianism  of  the  most 
flagrant  kind.  These  titular  Scotch  bishops  were  no  more  real 
bishops  than  the  scarecrows  in  a  field  of  corn  are  real  men,  or  the 
Irvingite  apostles  and  angels  are  real  apostles  and  angels.  Even 
King  James  himself,  in  llilO,  guarded  himself  against  being  sup- 


8 


posed  to  consider  them  in  reality  bishops.  (Spotiswood's  History, 
p.  514.)  Archdeacon  Churton  probably  regards  me  as  a  Low- 
Churchman;  but  I  can  assure  him  that  his  reference  to  these  per- 
sons as  "  bishops,"  and  as  showing  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  was 
then  in  any  degree  Episcopal,  is  a  depth  of  Low  Churchism  into 
which  I  should  be  sorry  to  fall.  It  is  not  the  mere  fact  of  their 
wanting  Episcopal  consecration  that  I  insist  upon,  but  that  it  was 
a  mere  political  appointment/or  State  purposes,  and  also  that  they 
did  not  enjoy  the  episcopal  office.  The  law  of  the  land,  though 
recognizing  them  for  convenience  sake  as  bishops  in  name,  had  ex- 
pressly established  a  non-Episcopal  form  of  church  government. 

Mr.  Lawson,  therefore,  justly  remarks,  when  speaking  of  the 
views  of  James  I.,  soon  after  his  accession  to  the  throne  of  England 
in  1603:  "He  was  convinced  of  the  collision  which  might  occur 
by  the  existence  of  two  different  ecclesiastical  establishments  in 
Britain,  in  the  event  of  the  accomplishment  of  the  union,  and 
knowing  too  well  the  turbulence  and  ungovernable  tempers  of  the 
supporters  of  the  Presbyterian  system,  it  was  a  wise  and  prudent 
resolution  to  attempt  to  amalgamate  Scotland  as  a  sister  Church 
with  the  Church  of  England."  {Ib.  267,  268.) 

Mr.  Scott,  of  Perth,  dates  the  first  "  overthrow  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,"  in  the  year  1606  (Ib.  264),  on  account,  proba- 
bly, of  the  Acts  passed  in  that  year  in  the  Scotch  Parliament,  one 
declaring  the  king's  supremacy  over  all  estates,  persons,  and 
causes,  and  another  entitled,  "Anent  the  Restitution  of  the  Estate 
of  Bishops  ;"  and  in  this  Mr.  Lawson  agrees  with  him,  on,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  good  grounds;  the  latter  Act  referring  to  much  more 
than  (as  stated  by  Spotiswood,  p.  496)  the  temporalities  of  the 
bishoprics.  (Ib.  276.)  The  Parliament,  therefore,  may  be  said 
to  have  restored  the  episcopal  form  of  government,  as  far  as  they 
could  do  so,  in  this  year.  But,  so  far  as  the  clergy  were  con- 
cerned, it  was  with  some  difficulty  that  the  General  Assembly  of 
this  year  was  induced  even  to  allow  the  bishops  to  be  moderators 
in  the  Presbyteries  where  they  were  resident.  (Sjjotiswood,  pp. 
500,  501.) 

If  the  canon,  therefore,  had  been  passed  between  1606  and 
1610,  there  might  have  been  something  in  the  Archdeacon's  argu- 
ment ;  but  as  it  is,  the  canon  was  passed  when,  by  the  law  of  the 
land,  as  well  as  the  determinations  of  the  ecclesiastics  of  Scotland, 
the  form  of  church  government  was  Presbyterian. 

The  Archdeacon  says :  "  As  early  as  1598,  if  not  earlier,  an 
Act  of  the  Scottish  Parliament  had  secured  to  the  bishops  and 
other  ecclesiastical  prelates  to  be  appointed  by  the  king,  their 
seats  and  voices  in  Parliament ;"  and  he  adds  that  before  1600 
several  bishops  had  been  nominated  to  different  Sees.  I  reply, 
Perfectly  true,  so  far  as  the  name  is  concerned,  but  nothing  else. 
For  neither  had  they  consecration  nor  the  episcopal  office.  They 
were  subject  to  their  Presbyteries  like  all  the  rest  of  their  brethren 
(according  to  rules  agreed  to  by  the  General  Assembly  and  the 
king  in  1600),  and  were  merely  bishops  for  civil  purposes,  to  give 


9 


their  vote  in  Parliament,  just  as  (for  the  sake  of  political  con- 
venience) the  Roman  Catholic  prelates  themselves,  after  they  had 
been  forbidden  even  to  exercise  their  clerical  functions  at  all,  were 
allowed  to  vote  in  Parliament. 

The  Archdeacon  adds:  "True,  these  bishops-designate  were  not 
consecrated  till  a  few  years  later ;  but  when  the  law  of  the  land 
had  recognized  their  estate,  and  the  men  were  known  and  appointed, 
it  appears  to  me  a  verbal  shuffle,  and  something  more  (unin- 
tentional, of  course),  to  say  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  '  was  then, 
as  now,  Presbyterian.'  "  So  that  the  Archdeacon  would  have  us 
suppose  that  the  law  of  the  land  had  then  authorized  the  Episcopal 
form  of  church  government,  and  that  bishops  were  accordingly  ap- 
pointed, and  their  consecration  only  in  a  state  of  abeyance.  No 
description  could  be  farther  removed  from  the  facts  of  the  case. 
The  State  had  been  in  the  habit  of  appointing  these  titular  bishops 
since  1571,  for  the  very  purpose  of  their  voting  in  Parliament ; 
and,  so  far  from  the  law  of  the  land  recognizing  their  estate  as 
governors  of  the  Church,  it  had  established  Presbyterianism  in 
1592  as  the  form  of  church  government  to  be  followed,  and  had 
not  in  1004  annulled  that  argument.  And  so  little  was  the  ap- 
pointment made  on  the  understanding  of  future  consecration,  that, 
when  such  consecration  was  proposed  by  King  James  in  1610,  it 
was  objected  to  at  first  by  the  "bishops"  themselves,  on  the 
ground  that  the  Church  of  England  might  claim  some  power  over 
them.  In  fact,  it  is  evident  that  consecration  would  never  have 
been  thought  of,  but  from  the  circumstance,  which  happened  sub- 
sequently, of  King  James's  accession  to  the  throne  of  England. 

I  regret  that  the  Archdeacon  should  have  used  the  somewhat 
offensive  phrase  of  a  "verbal  shuffle,  and  something  more;"  and 
in  the  present  case  he  is  peculiarly  unfortunate  in  his  application 
of  it,  when  his  own  cause  rests  solely  upon  the  use  of  the  name  of 
Bishop,  where  the  thing  had  no  place.  The  reality  is  precisely 
what  the  bishop  has  described  it  to  be,  and  the  Archdeacon  is  only 
able  to  throw  discredit  upon  the  statement  by  parading  before  the 
reader  what  turns  out  to  be  an  empty  shadow.  His  tulehan  bishops 
are  men  of  straw,  that  may  do  very  well  to  frighten  young  birds, 
but  will  not  have  the  slightest  effect  upon  old  ones. 

The  facts  of  the  case  lie  in  a  nutshell.  There  were  no  bishops  in 
lOO-l  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  having  either  Episcopal  consecra- 
tion or  the  Episcopal  office,  or  even  any  immediate  prospect  of  one 
or  the  other. 

There  were  no  Orders  but  Presbyterian  Orders.  The  Church 
was  under  the  government  (subject,  of  course,  to  the  king)  of  a 
General  Assembly,  consisting  of  presbyters  and  laymen,  the  re- 
presentatives of  the  local  presbyteries,  by  which  the  affairs  of  the 
different  districts  into  which  the  country  was  divided  were  directed  ; 
to  which  the  "bishops"  were  subject;  these  "bishops"  not  being 
allowed,  previous  to  1G06,  to  be,  by  right,  even  the  moderators  of 
the  synods  held  in  their  dioceses. 

If  this  is  not  a  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government,  will 


10 


the  Archdeacon  say  what  he  calls  it  ?  And,  be  it  observed,  what- 
ever name  may  be  given  to  it,  it  certainly  is  a  non-Episcopal  form 
and  destitute  of  Episcopal  Orders  ;  so  that  the  purpose  for  which 
the  Canon  has  been  adduced,  namely,  to  show  that  our  Church 
recognizes,  as  a  Church,  one  which  is  destitute  of  Episcopal  Orders, 
is  equally  answered,  whatever  name  be  applied. 

It  has  lately  been  said,  in  opposition  to  such  a  view  as  that  ad- 
vocated above,  that  the  Canon  refers  to  "that  branch  of  Christ's 
Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  which  had  existed  in  Scotland 
from  the  days  of  St.  Ninianus,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century, 
and  which,  amidst  persecution  and  spiritual  rebellion,  had  no  more 
ceased  to  exist  than  had  the  Church  of  Carthage  during  the  absence 
and  persecution  of  St.  Cyprian ;  which  had  been  represented  sub- 
sequent to  the  Reformation  by  bishops  canonically  consecrated, 
and  by  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow,  who  was  restored  to  his  See 
in  1599,  and  retained  it  till  his  death  in  the  year  1603." 

Now,  it  would  be  interesting  to  know  who  formed  this  Church 
in  1G04,  if  it  was  not  the  Church  of  which  we  have  been  speaking. 
All  the  bishops  here  mentioned  were  dead,  and  had  never  been 
allowed  to  act  as  bishops ;  for  the  two  who  joined  the  Reformed 
Church  adopted  of  necessity  its  discipline,  and  the  Archbishop  of 
Glasgow  was  not  restored  to  his  See,  except  as  to  the  enjoyment  of 
its  temporalities.  At  any  rate,  being  all  dead,  none  of  these  were 
members  of  it.  The  king  and  the  titular  bishops  belonged  to  the 
Church  of  which  the  governing  body  under  the  king  was  the 
General  Assembly.  And  what  the  form  of  church  government 
agreed  to  by  the  king  and  the  General  Assembly  was  in  1604,  we 
have  already  seen  ;  and  therefore,  where  the  supposed  Church  is  to 
be  found,  distinct  from  the  Church  of  which  we  have  been  speaking, 
I  am  unable  to  conjecture  ;  and  wherever  it  was,  it  had  no  bishops, 
for  none  existed ;  and  only  presbyterianly  ordained  pastors,  for 
none  others  were  to  be  found;  and  consequently,  however  well  the 
words  sound,  I  do  not  see  how  they  advance  the  cause  they  are 
intended  to  promote.  In  truth,  ex  nihilo  nil  fit ;  there  were  no 
bishops  and  no  Episcopal  form  of  church  government,  and  no  ver- 
borum  ambages  will  produce  them.  And  I  should  have  conceived 
that  the  claim  of  the  Church  to  which  the  king  and  his  titular  bishops 
belonged,  would  have  been  too  strong  for  it  to  have  been  passed 
over  by  those  who  made  the  Canon. 

In  short,  if  this  matter  had  not  been  involved  in  confusion  by 
the  prejudiced  statements  of  party  historians,  no  question  would 
have  arisen  respecting  it.  But  in  this  case,  as  in  others  about 
which  we  have  accounts  written  by  a  number  of  zealous  partisans 
of  different  views,  nothing  is  easier  than  apparently  to  prove,  by 
the  statements  of  respectable  historians,  anything  we  wish.  The 
zealous  Episcopalian,  anxious  to  maintain  an  uninterrupted  series 
of  bishops  from  the  Reformation,  talks  of  these  titular  bishops  as  if 
they  were  realities.  The  hot  Presbyterian,  angry  at  King  James's 
interference  with  the  General  Assembly,  often  speaks  as  if  his 
favorite  Presbyterianisin  had  been  abolished  when  the  power  of 


11 


that  Assembly  to  do  just  what  it  pleased  was  curtailed  ;  as,  for 
instance,  Calderwood,  who  tells  us  that  in  159G  "  ended  the  sin- 
cere General  Assemblies  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland."  And  if  such 
statements  are  taken  as  evidence  (and  as  such  they  have  lately 
been  used),  we  may  give  almost  any  description  we  please  of  the 
state  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  at  that  period.  But  if  we  will 
only  separate  the  facts  from  the  prejudiced  statements  in  which 
they  are  involved  by  the  various  historians  of  the  period,  the  case 
will  be  perfectly  clear. 

I  am,  Sir,  your  obedient  servant, 
Charterhouse  Square,  Nov.  25,  1851.        W.  GOODE. 

The  answer  of  Archdeacon  Churton  to  this  letter  I  place  in  a 
note  below,  as  it  is  the  fairest  course  to  let  him  speak  for  himself; 
and  also  my  reply  to  a  point  incidentally  arising  out  of  his  second 
letter,  but  not  touching  the  point  in  question.* 

*  To  the  Editor  of  the  Guardian. 

Sir:  If  Mr.  Goode,  as  he  seems  to  wish  us  to  know,  led  Bishop  Lee  into  making  that 
delusive  statement  about  the  Church  of  Scotland,  he  was  bound  to  offer  a  public  apology 
for  it.  This,  I  suppose,  he  has  now  done  at  as  much  length  as  he  desired;  and  your 
editorial  courtesy  has  not  deprived  him  of  any  portion  of  an  answer  of  three  columns  to 
a  letter  of  twenty  or  thirty  lines. 

I  shall  merely  beg  space  to  remind  your  readers  that  in  my  letter  I  stated  two  or  three 
historical  fticts.  They  were  enough  for  my  purpose,  though  I  could  easily  have  stated 
more.  Has  Mr.  Goode  contradicted  those  facts?  He  knows  he  cannot.  He  has  wasted 
much  time  and  paper  in  proving  that  the  Scottish  bishops,  in  those  years  which  preceded 
their  consecration,  though  barons  of  Parliament,  had  no  spiritual  title  or  power  as  bishops 
in  the  Church.  This  he  is  all  the  time  aware  I  was  so  far  from  denying,  that  I  distinctly 
pointed  it  out. 

But  he  argues  that  these  bishops  of  Parliament  were  appointed  without  any  ulterior 
design  to  make  thctn  bishops  of  the  Church.  Your  readers  will  know  how  to  judge  of 
this  argument,  who  have  read  King  James  the  First's  Premonition  to  Christian  Monarchs. 
They  w  ill  know  how  to  estimate  the  value  of  the  assertion,  that  "  things  were  then  pro- 
gressing towards  a  regular  Presbvterian  form  of  government."  Your  readers  who  are 
familiar  with  the  Memorials  of  the  Hampton  Court  Conference  will  remember  in  what 
reverent  terms  King  James  there  spoke  of  the  said  "  Scottish  Presbytery,"  and  will 
know  what  to  think  of  the  hypothesis,  that  this  monarch's  counsellors  were  favorable  to 
the  erection  of  that  most  loyal  platform. 

Mr.  Goode  has  thought  it  proper  to  say  somewhere  in  the  course  of  his  long  letter, 
"  Archdeacon  Churton  probably  regards  ine  as  a  Low  Churchman."  As  I  have  never, 
to  my  knowledge,  given  any  opinion  about  Mr.  Goode,  I  beg  the  reader  to  observe,  that 
this  name  is  of  his  own  application,  and  it  is  a  poor  artifice  of  controversy  to  impute  to 
me  the  act  of  a  judgment,  which  Ins  charity  to  himself  has  suggested  as  something  due 
to  his  own  reputation.  E.  C. 

Yoek,  Dec.  5,  1S51. 

(Guardian,  Dec.  10.) 


To  the  Editor  of  the  Guardian. 

Sir:  I  have  not  the  slightest  wish  to  add  one  word  on  the  controversy  between  Arch- 
deacon Churton  and  myself;  but  as  he  has  chosen  to  impute  to  me  a  wish  to  have  it  un- 
derstood that  I  led  the  Bishop  of  Manchester  into  making  the  statement  he  did  as  to  the 
55th  Canon,  I  must  request  permission  to  state  that  I  have  never  had  the  slightest  com- 
munication with  the  Bishop  on  the  subject,  and  my  letter  neither  stated  nor  intimated  in 
any  way  that  such  was  the  case. 

From  which  of  us  "  a  public  apology"  for  "  delusive  statements"  is  most  needed,  I 
willingly  leave  your  readers  to  determine.    Your  obedient  servant, 

\V.  Goode. 

31  Charterhouse  Square,  Dec.  11,1851. 

(Guardian,  Dec.  17.1 

While  this  sheet  was  passing  through  the  press,  a  reply  from  Archdeacon  Churton  to 
this  letter  appears  in  the  Guardian  for  Dec.  24,  which  is  best  left  to  answer  itself. 


12 


But  for  the  appearance  of  Chancellor  Ilarington's  pamphlet,  in 
■which  he  has  republished  several  of  his  letters  addressed  to  the 
public  Journals  on  this  and  the  kindred  subject  of  Non-Episcopal 
Ordinations,*  I  should  have  been  contented  with  the  correspond- 
ence in  the  Guardian.  But,  as  Mr.  Harington  has  appealed  to 
the  public  in  a  more  permanent  form,  and  his  pamphlet  is  referred 
to  by  the  Editor  of  the  Guardian  (Dec.  10),  in  connection  with 
my  Letter,  as  one  in  which  its  readers  "  will  find  the  historical 
facts  well  and  concisely  stated,  and  the  argument  from  the  internal 
evidence  resulting  from  the  Canons  themselves  forcibly  put,"  it  has 
appeared  to  me  desirable  to  publish  the  above  Letter  in  the  same 
form,  appending  a  few  observations  in  answer  to  the  Chancellor's 
statements  on  the  same  subject,  and  also  a  reply  to  his  letters  on 
Non-Episcopal  Ordinations. 

On  Archdeacon  Churton's  answer  it  can  scarcely  be  necessary  to 
offer  many  remarks.  The  tone  and  quality  of  his  Letters  I  leave 
our  readers  to  judge  of ;  and  though  I  deeply  regret,  for  his  own 
sake  and  that  of  the  position  he  holds  in  the  Church,  to  see  him 
taking  such  a  course,  yet  I  must  say  that  they  are  highly  charac- 
teristic of  his  party  ;  and  I  believe  that  their  manifold  productions 
of  this  kind  have  done  good  service  in  showing  the  public  the  real 
value  of  their  inflated  pretensions. 

The  Archdeacon  says  that  he  only  stated  facts,  and  that  I  can- 
not contradict  them;  and  that  he  "distinctly  pointed  out,"  that 
the  Scottish  bishops,  at  the  period  in  question,  "  had  no  spiritual 
title  or  power  as  bishops  in  the  Church."  Now,  so  far  from  doing 
this,  he  did,  in  fact  (which,  in  his  haste,  he  has  forgotten),  directly 
the  contrary,  for  he  asserted  that  "the  law  of  the  land  had  recog- 
nized their  estate,"  which  it  had  not  done;  but,  on  the  contrary  (as 
I  said  before),  "had  expressly  established  a  Non-Episcopal  form 
of  church  government."  In  fact,  if  he  had  done  so,  it  would  have 
spoiled  his  whole  argument,  for  his  readers  would  at  once  have  seen 
the  absurdity  of  his  attacking  the  Bishop  of  Manchester  for  say- 
ing that  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  under  a  Presbyterian  form  of 
government,  because  there  were  persons  called  "bishops"  in  Scot- 
land ;  when  he  was  compelled  at  the  same  time  to  admit  that 
these  "bishops"  "had  no  spiritual  title  or  power,  as  bishops,  in 
the  Church."  And  his  charge  of  a  "verbal  shuffle"  would  by  his 
own  testimony  have  been  brought  back  upon  himself. 

When  he  says  that  I  argue  "  that  these  bishops  of  Parliament 
were  appointed  without  any  ulterior  design  to  make  them  bishops 
of  the  Church,"  he  is  putting  words  into  my  mouth,  to  suit  his 
purpose,  which  I  never  used  ;  and  he  urges  King  James's  design 
to  make  them  real  bishops  when  he  might  have  the  opportunity  as 
overthrowing  my  argument.  My  letter,  as  given  above,  will  show 
what  I  did  say.    With  King  James's  secret  designs  and  wishes, 

*  Entitled,  "  A  Letter,  &c,  on  the  LV.  Canon  and  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  ;  w  ith  an  Ap- 
pendix containing  the  cases  of  Morrison,  &c,  the  witness  of  Anglican  divines  for  Episco- 
pacy, &c.    Lond.  Rivington."  pp.  100,  Svo. 


13 


whatever  they  were,  we  have  nothing  to  do,  nor  will  they  do  more 
to  prove  what  the  government  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  really 
was,  than  the  Archdeacon's  designs  and  wishes  will  show  what  the 
government  of  the  Church  of  England  now  is. 

He  remarks,  that  they  who  have  read  King  James's  Premoni- 
tion to  Christian  Monarchs,  "  will  know  how  to  estimate  the  value 
of  the  assertion,  that  '  things  were  then  progressing  towards  a 
regular  Presbyterian  form  of  government.'  "  I  need  hardly  re- 
mind the  reader  that  these  words  of  mine,  spoken  with  reference 
to  the  period  just  preceding  the  year  1581,  state  a  notorious  fact, 
this  form  of  government  having  been  first  developed  in  the 
General  Assembly  in  1581,  and  established  by  Act  of  Parliament 
in  1592.  The  king  and  his  counsellors  may  have  as  much 
wished  to  introduce  a  regular  Episcopalian  Church  into  Scotland 
as  King  James  II.  and  his  counsellors  wished  to  introduce  Popery 
into  England ;  but  what  we  have  to  deal  with  is  fact,  not  the 
king's  desires. 

To  impute  to  me  "the  hypothesis  that  this  monarch's  coun- 
sellors were  favorable  to  the  erection  of  that  most  loyal  platform" 
of  Presbytery,  is  one  of  that  species  of  assertion  that  are  best  left 
to  the  reader  to  do  justice  upon. 

We  have  only  to  deal  with  what  was  done  by  them  ;  and  so  far 
as  this  is  concerned,  it  appears  that  even  so  late  as  1606,  when 
the  king  proposed  to  the  General  Assembly  at  Linlithgow,  that 
his  titular  bishops  should  be  the  permanent  moderators  of  their 
synods,  and  "this  overture,  seeming  to  import  a  great  alteration 
in  the  Discipline,  was  not  well  accepted  of  divers,"  "his  Majesty's 
Commissioner  declared,  that  it  was  so  far  from  the  king's  purpose 
to  make  any  change  in  the  present  Discipline,  as  he  did  not  long 
for  anything  more  than  to  have  it  rightly  settled,  and  all  these 
eye-lists  removed,  which  had  given  him  so  just  occasion  of  dis- 
content." (Spotisivood,  p.  501.) 

The  last  paragraph  I  must  confess  myself  unable  to  understand. 
How  it  can  be  an  "artifice  of  controversy"  to  suppose  that 
Archdeacon  Churton  thinks  me  "  a  Low  Churchman,"  when  it  is 
notorious  that  he  must  do  so,  if  he  is  true  to  his  own  avowed 
principles,  which  I  have  no  doubt  he  is,  passes  my  poor  compre- 
hension. 

I  would  advise  the  Archdeacon,  another  time,  first  to  be  a  little 
more  careful  how  he  launches  a  bitter  and  offensive  charge  against 
others,  of  uttering  a  "verbal  shuffle,  and  something  more,"  when 
making  a  statement  on  a  matter  on  which  (to  take  the  most 
charitable  view)  he  has  but  a  limited  stock  of  information;  and, 
secondly,  when  the  opposition  of  his  statements  to  undeniable 
facts  is  calmly  pointed  out,  to  allow  his  reason  (to  say  nothing 
of  good  manners)  to  have  a  little  more  sway,  when  he  sits  down 
to  make  his  reply ;  otherwise,  he  will  find  that  his  misstatements 
will  rapidly  multiply,  and  be  regretted  by  himself  in  his  calmer 
moments. 


14 


I  now  proceed  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  Chancellor  Haring- 
ton's  statements  on  this  subject ;  the  principal  of  which  I  have 
already  noticed  in  my  reply  to  Archdeacon  Churton.  And  I  shall 
limit  myself  to  a  few  remarks,  because  it  appears  to  me  that  the 
facts  proved  in  my  Letter  show  indisputably  what  the  state  of 
things  was  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  in  1604  ;  and  no  amount  of 
extracts  giving  the  views  of  party  writers  on  the  subject,  can  make 
the  case  different  from  what  facts  prove  it  to  have  been.  With 
real  respect  for  Chancellor  Harington,  I  must  say  that  he  does 
not  appear  to  me  to  have  gone  the  right  way  to  get  at  the  simple 
truth.  He  may  multiply  extracts  from  various  writers  sufficient 
to  fill  an  octavo  volume,  as  easily  as  his  pamphlet :  he  may  ask 
one  and  another  what  they  think  about  the  matter,  and  present 
us  with  a  mountain  of  testimonies  in  his  favor ;  but  not  prove  a 
single  point.  In  short,  he  may  heap  Pelion  upon  Ossa,  and 
Olympus  upon  Felion,  and  be  practically  as  far  off  as  ever  from 
the  throne  of  truth.  He  himself  informs  us,  that  he  has  "  sought 
a  solution  of  this  question,  so  far  as  the  history  of  the  Kirk  is 
involved,  by  correspondence  and  conference  with  several  eminent 
Presbyterian  writers  in  Scotland."  (P.  5.)  Now,  with  all  respect 
for  these  winters,  I  confess  it  would  have  been  one  of  the  last 
ways  I  should  have  thought  of  for  eliciting  "  a  solution  of  the 
question"  at  issue.  For  these  writers  would  naturally  feel 
great  disgust  at  King  James's  interferences  with  the  General 
Assembly,  and  the  subtile  way  in  which  he  endeavored  to  under- 
mine that  Presbyterian  form  of  government  which,  while  he  was 
compelled  to  support,  he  secretly  disliked ;  and  would  be  inclined 
therefore  to  antedate  the  extinction  of  what  they  would  wish  to 
be  considered  the  true  and  genuine  Presbyterian  form  of  govern- 
ment ;  just  as  some  high  Episcopalian  writers  are  inclined  to 
antedate  the  establishment  of  prelacy.  It  seems  to  me  somewhat 
similar  to  the  Pope's  recent  mode  of  determining  the  doctrine  of 
the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  by  writing  round 
to  his  bishops,  and  asking  each,  What  do  you  think  ?  and,  What 
do  you  think  ?  Of  course,  he  got  an  abundance  of  answers  to  his 
mind. 

What  we  have  to  deal  with  is  the  simple  question,  What  was 
the  form  of  church  government  in  Scotland  in  1604  ?  I  have 
shown,  in  my  Letter,  what  it  was;  and  I  would  ask  the  Chancellor, 
as  I  have  asked  the  Archdeacon,  what  he  calls  such  a  form  of 
church  government.  It  matters  nothing  to  us  what  modern  Pres- 
byterians think  of  it.  That  does  not  alter  the  facts  of  the  case, 
nor  touch  the  question  at  issue.  That  Church  was  then  under  a 
Presbyterian  form  of  church  government,  and  it  is  so  now.  That 
is  the  statement  made  ;  and  the  truth  of  it  is  proved  by  unde- 
niable facts.  That  the  present  mode  of  carrying  out  that  govern- 
ment may  be  different  from  that  which  was  followed  at  that  time, 
does  not  affect  the  question. 

I  must  beg  permission,  therefore,  to  remind  the  Chancellor,  that 


15 


all  his  extracts  from  various  authors,  as  to  the  non-recognition  of 
the  General  Assemblies  of  the  Kirk,  after  1597,  by  certain  writers 
or  parties,  and  as  to  their  opinion  of  certain  acts  of  the  king 
being  tantamount  to  the  establishment  of  Episcopacy,  &c,  prove 
nothing.  It  is  a  question  of  fact  with  which  we  are  concerned, 
and  such  statements  only  serve  to  obscure  the  truth. 

The  Chancellor  tells  us  (p.  12),  that  when  we  "  examine  into  the 
real  sentiments  of  King  James,"  &c.  "  the  idea  of  the  Presbyterian 
Kirk  .  .  .  being  recognized  by  the  Canon  as  a  branch  of  Christ's 
Holy  Catholic  Church,  is  positively  absurd."  And  he  proceeds  to 
devote  six  pages  to  extracts  from  King  James's  works  and  other 
sources,  to  show  how,  '■'■from  an  early  period,"  he  had  recognized 
"Episcopacy  as  an  ordinance  of  God,"  &c.  &c,  and  hence  to  prove 
the  "absurdity"  of  such  a  supposition.  Now,  to  these  six  pages 
my  reply  shall  be  given  in  about  six  lines.  The  very  Act  of  1597, 
so  much  referred  to,  "sets  forth  that  his  Majesty,  with  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Estates,  '  decerns  and  declares  that  the  Kirk  within 
this  realm,  wherein  the  same  religion  is  professed,  is  the  true  and 
holy  KlKE,  and  that  such  pastors  and  ministers  within  the  same, 
as  at  any  time  his  Majesty  shall  please  to  provide  to  the  office,  place, 
title,  and  dignity  of  a  Bishop,  Abbot,  or  other  Prelate,  shall  at  all  time 
hereafter  have  vote  in  Parliament,  &c.'  "  (Lawson's  Hist,  p.  241.) 
The  former  part  of  these  words  is  omitted  by  Mr.  Stephen.  So 
that  it  was  "  the  true  and  holy  Kirk,"  in  King  James's  estimation, 
previous  to  the  Act  of  1597.    Was  it  less  so  in  1604  ? 

The  next  ten  pages  nearly  are  devoted  to  extracts  intended  to 
show  the  absurdity  of  supposing  Bancroft  to  have  recognized  a 
Presbyterian  community  as  a  Church.  My  reply  is  simply  the 
account  given  by  Spotiswood,  quoted  in  my  Letter,  of  what  took 
place  at  the  consecration  of  the  Scotch  bishops  in  1610,  Spotiswood 
being  one  of  them.  If  Chancellor  Harington  denies  its  truth,  he 
may  as  well  deny  the  value  of  almost  all  the  records  of  history  we 
possess.  If  he  admits  it,  there  is  an  end  to  the  question  as  to 
Bancroft's  views  on  the  point.  If,  as  is  asserted  (p.  27),  Dr.  Ban- 
croft "  added  a  more  convincing  solution,''  i.  e.  more  convincing 
to  those  who  like  it  better,  that  addition  does  not  affect  the  matter! 
If  he  said  what  Archbishop  Spotiswood  tells  us  he  did  say,  it  is  a 
waste  of  time  to  discuss  the  matter  any  farther. 

In  the  3d  Letter  in  his  Appendix,  Mr.  Harington  takes  up  this 
question  again,  and  speaking  of  a  reference  to  this  statement  of 
Spotiswood,  he  says,  "  if  historical  truth  had  been  aimed  at,  it 
should  have  been  stated  that  Heylin  and  other  writers  give  a  very 
different  solution  of  the  difficulty ;"  namely,  that  Bancroft  said, 
that  consecration  as  a  bishop  supplied  all  defects  as  to  the  lower 
orders.  (P.  97.)  But  does  Mr.  Harington  mean  to  oppose  Heylin's 
unsupported  assertions,  or  those  of  "other  writers,"  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Archbishop  Spotiswood,  who  was  himself  one  of  the 
three  bishops  then  consecrated  ?  If  not,  his  censure  for  not  refer- 
ring the  reader  to  those  assertions  falls  to  the  ground.    In  fact, 


16 


there  is  no  contradiction  between  the  two,  for  Bancroft  might  have 
given  (as  some  say  he  did)  both  solutions.  Mr.  Harington  pro- 
ceeds to  tell  us  that  Neale  ascribes  the  statement  to  Abbot.  It 
would  have  been  better,  if  he  had  also  told  us,  that  Neale  confirms 
Archbishop  Spotiswood's  statement  as  to  Bancroft,  ascribing  to 
Bancroft  the  precise  remark  which  the  Archbishop  attributes 
to  him. 

The  extract  from  Malcolm  Laing  (p.  99)  is  directly  adverse  to 
Mr.  Harington's  view  ;  for  he  says,  "  their  ordination  even  to 
the  priesthood  was  questioned ;  but  the  objection  was  overruled, 
lest  their  former  Presbyterian  vocation  should  appear  invalid ;  the 
subordinate  order  of  priesthood  was  included,  or  supposed  to  be 
included,  in  the  Episcopal ;  and  was  supplied,  if  defective,  by  the 
regular  consecration  of  these  Scottish  Bishops."  So  that  here  were 
two  ways  of  removing  the  difficulty,  either  of  which  might  be 
adopted  by  those  concerned  in  the  consecration  ;  and  perhaps  to 
Bishop  Andrews  the  latter  might  be  the  most  acceptable;  but  we 
have  in  these  words  rather  a  confirmation  than  otherwise  of  Arch- 
bishop Spotiswood's  statement. 

When  therefore  Mr.  Harington  sums  up,  "  Unless  the  writer  in 
the  Herald  can  throw  any  new  light  upon  the  subject,  I  shall  con- 
clude that  the  admission  of  Presbyterian  orders  by  the  bishops 
who  consecrated  the  Scottish  prelates  is  still  to  be  proved,'"  I  must 
reply  (leaving  the  writer  in  the  Morning  Herald  to  answer  for 
himself),  that  unless  Mr.  Harington  can  prove  that  Archbishop 
Spotiswood's  statement,  in  a  matter  where  he  himself  was  one  of 
the  principal  parties  concerned,  is  not  to  be  believed,  and  so  all  his- 
torical records  be  made  valueless,  I  shall  conclude  that  such  ad- 
mission is  proved.    And  the  public  must  judge  between  us. 

The  truth  is,  that  when  all  these  persons  were  recognizing  and 
cherishing  as  true  Churches  of  Christ  the  Foreign  Beformed 
Churches  that  were  under  a  Presbyterian  form  of  government,  it  is 
to  me  incomprehensible  (I  will  not  use  Chancellor  Harington's 
phrase  absurd,  lest  he  might  dislike  the  rebound  of  his  own  term), 
how  it  can  be  urged  as  impossible  that  they  should  recognize  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland  as  a  true  Church,  and  pray  for 
it  as  such.  Will  Chancellor  Harington  tell  us,  why  they  should 
recognize  a  Genevan  ecclesiastical  community  as  a  Church  (as 
even  Bishop  Cosin  did,  and  communicated  with  it  rather  than  with 
Borne),  and  repudiate  the  Presbyterian  Scotch  Kirk  ? 

Chancellor  Harington  next  proceeds  to  quote  Canons  7,  8,  and 
9,  of  1604,  as  declaring  that  all  who  spoke  of  the  government  of 
the  Church  of  England  as  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,  were  ex- 
communicated ipso  facto  ;  and,  with  exclamations  of  triumph,  de- 
duces the  conclusion,  that  therefore  by  the  Canons  every  consistent 
member  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  excommunicated  ipso  facto. 

Surely  he  must  see  in  a  moment,  upon  reconsideration,  the  fallacy 
of  his  argument.  It  is  like  arguing  that,  because  the  law  decrees 
that  everybody  that  denies  the  sovereignty  of  the  Queen  is  a  traitor, 


17 


and  ought  to  be  put  to  death,  therefore  every  foreigner  all  over 
the  world  ought  to  be  shot. 

Tliese  Canons  of  course  apply  only  to  England,  and  excommu- 
nication can  only  be  denounced  against  those  who  are  considered 
as  being  legally  within  the  Church.  You  cannot  turn  a  man  out 
of  your  house  who  never  was  in  it. 

If  Mr.  Harington's  argument  was  sound,  it  would  apply  as 
much  to  some  of  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches — whom  our 
Church  then  looked  upon  with  the  most  favorable  eye,  as  the 
great  bulwarks  of  true  religion  on  the  Continent — as  to  the  Church 
of  Scotland.  Let  Mr.  Ilarington  read  Beza's  abuse  of  the  pre- 
latical  government  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  then  see  the 
terms  in  which  Archbishop  Whitgift  (when  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury), in  1593,  in  a  letter  noticing  his  statements,  addresses  him. 
He  commences  by  styling  him  his  "most  dear  brother  in  God," 
and  superscribes  his  letter  to  him  as  "  his  most  dear  brother  and 
colleague  in  Christ,  and  faithful  pastor  of  the  Gfenevan  Church." 
{Strype's  Life  of  Whitgift,  ii.  pp.  159,  173.) 

Such  facts  (as  Chancellor  Harington  well  knows)  might  be 
easily  multiplied  a  hundred  fold.  And  yet,  strange  to  say,  we 
are  told  it  is  "  absurd"  to  suppose  that  a  Canon  of  1604  could 
recognize  a  Presbyterian  community  as  a  Church  ! 

Seven  more  pages  are  then  occupied  with  extracts  from  the 
Canons  of  1606,  laying  down  the  claims  of  the  Episcopal  form  of 
church  government,  and  declaring  that  he  who  denies  them  "  doth 
greatly  err."  But  cut  bono  ?  The  question  is  not  whether  our 
greatest  divines  have  spoken  in  the  strongest  terms  of  the  Scrip- 
tural claims  of  Episcopacy,  and  maintained  that  those  who  rejected 
them,  and  set  up  another  platform  of  church  discipline,  did 
"  greatly  err."  No  one  who  knows  anything  about  the  matter 
can  doubt  it.  But  the  question  is,  whether  those  who,  under  cer- 
tain circumstances,  have  adopted  a  different  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment, are  to  be  considered  as  destitute  of  any  power  to  minis- 
ter the  word  and  sacraments,  and  outcasts  from  the  communion 
of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ.  Let  Chancellor  Harington  ask 
himself  the  question  whether  Archdeacon  Mason  or  Bishop  Cosin 
would  not  cordially  have  assented  to  those  Canons,  and  then  let  him 
remember  what  both  of  them  have  said  of  the  ministry  of  certain 
Non-Episcopal  Churches.  Archbishop  Whitgift  no  doubt  thought 
that  Beza  did  "  greatly  err"  when  he  attacked  the  prelatical  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  of  England  in  such  unmeasured  terms ;  but  that 
did  not  prevent  his  addressing  him  as  his  "  most  dear  brother  and 
colleague  in  Christ."  Oh  !  for  a  little  more  of  the  same  charity 
among  ourselves  in  the  present  day  ! 

When,  therefore,  the  Chancellor  concludes:  "Perhaps  you  had 
been  misled  by  the  seductive  charms  of  Mr.  Macaulay,  who  tells 
us  that,  '  in  the  year  1603,  the  Province  of  Canterbury  solemnly 
recognized  the  Church  of  Scotland,  a  Church  in  which  Episcopal 
control  and  Episcopal  ordination  were  then  unknown,  as  a  branch 
5 


18 


of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  of  Christ,'  "  I  must  say,  that  though 
not  always  disposed  to  agree  with  Mr.  Macaulay  in  his  ecclesias- 
tical statements,  he  has  here  recorded  a  simple  fact,  and  stated  it 
with  an  accuracy  of  language  which  places  even  his  words  en- 
tirely beyond  the  reach  of  Mr.  Ilarington's  criticism.  And  I  can 
only  wish  that  the  "seductive  charms  of  Mr.  Macaulay"  had  for 
once  detached  the  Chancellor  from  those  "seductive  charms"  of 
modern  High  Church  principles  which  have  led  him  to  turn  aside  out 
of  the  high-road  of  proved  facts,  to  seek  truth  in  the  by-ways  of 
prejudiced  statements  and  inferential  reasonings  from  documents 
which  do  not  meet  the  point  at  issue. 

Against  Mr.  Stephen's  assertions  in  the  Postscript,  I  shall 
merely  place  the  facts  stated  in  my  letter.  His  offered  proofs  I 
shall  be  happy  to  see,  only  reminding  him  and  Mr.  Harington 
of  what  seems  to  me  to  have  been  too  much  forgotten  in  this 
matter,  that  the  mere  statements  of  historians  are  no  proof s  of  the 
real  facts  of  the  case.  What  Collier  may  say  of  what  took  place 
in  1000  is,  in  itself,  worth  no  more  than  what  Mr.  Macaulay  or 
Mr.  Stephen  may  say.  And  even  in  the  case  of  contemporary  his- 
torians, the  greatest  care  is  necessary  to  separate  the  facts  brought 
down  to  us  in  their  statements,  from  the  colorings  with  which  those 
facts  are  clothed.  Thus,  the  statements  of  Calderwood  and  Dr. 
Iletherington,  quoted  by  Chancellor  Harington  (p.  7),  are  so  far 
from  throwing  any  light  on  the  subject,  that  they  only  tend  to  hide 
the  truth  from  the  reader,  because  they  give  a  false  view  of  the 
subject. 

The  interpretation  which  Chancellor  Harington  gives  to  the 
Canon,  I  have  already  noticed  in  my  Letter  to  the  G-uardian, 
given  above.  (See  p.  8.)  It  may  be  worth  while  to  add  that  of 
Mr.  Stephen,  as  here  stated.  Both  appear  to  me  remarkably  to 
show  the  desperate  shifts  to  which  our  modern  High  Church  inter- 
preters of  that  Canon  are  driven  to  make  the  words  square  with 
their  notions.  Mr.  Stephen  says,  that  Bancroft  "no  doubt  had 
the  55th  Canon  so  framed  as  to  pray  for  the  grace  of  Reformation 
for  the  Church  of  Scotland  as  it  then  defectively  stood ;  and,  by 
anticipation,  for  that  Branch  of  the  holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church,  when  in  reality  she  should  be  duly  organized  according 
to  Christ's  appointment.  Therefore  the  Canon  neither  does  nor 
can  refer  to  the  Presbyterian  Kirk,  but  to  the  titular  and  real  Epis- 
copal Church  of  that  country."  This,  in  other  words,  amounts  to 
saying  Bancroft  no  doubt  framed  the  Canon  according  to  my  view; 
therefore  the  Canon  "neither  does  nor  can"  mean  anything  else 
than  my  view.  But,  to  let  this  pass,  let  us  observe  what  that  view  is : 
it  is,  that  the  Canon  referred,  at  the  time  it  was  made,  to  the  titular 
Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland,  and,  after  the  consecration  of  the 
bishops,  to  the  real  Episcopal  Church  of  that  country.  My  reply 
is,  that  in  1004  there  was  no  Church  attached  to  the  titular  Epis- 
copate. The  titular  bishops  formed  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  had  sworn  submission  to  the  Presbyteries,  Provincial  and  Gen- 
eral Assemblies  of  that  Church.  Mr.  Stephen's  alleged  Church, 
therefore,  is  a  nonentity — a  phantasm  of  his  own  imagination. 


19 


II.— ON  NON-EPISCOPAL  ORDINATIONS. 

I  NOW  proceed  to  notice  the  Letters  which  Chancellor  Harington 
has  reprinted  in  his  Appendix,  from  the  Morning  Chronicle,  re- 
lating to  the  question  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  on  Non-Episco- 
pal Orders. 

The  third  Letter,  which  relates  to  the  consecration  of  the  Scotch 
Bishops  in  1610,  I  have  already  noticed.  There  remain,  there- 
fore, only  the  two  former. 

I  must  first  observe,  however,  that  I  have  already  discussed  this 
subject  at  some  length  in  a  Review  in  the  Christian  Observer  for 
November,  1851,  which,  with  the  Editor's  permission,  I  have  since 
reprinted  in  a  separate  form  j*  and,  therefore,  I  shall  only  add  here 
what  may  be  necessary  to  meet  Mr.  Ilarington's  statements  on 
the  subject,  referring  to  the  authorities  I  have  there  given.  The 
first  Letter  is  occupied  with  the  cases  of  Morrison  and  the  Church 
of  Alexandria  as  mentioned  by  Eutychius.  With  the  reference  to 
Eutychius  I  have  now  no  concern,  because  I  am  considering  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  though  quite  ready,  at  a  suit- 
able time,  to  discuss  that  also  with  Mr.  Harington. 

Morrison's  case  I  have  given  in  my  parnphlet  (p.  29) ;  and  it 
appears  that,  though  he  had  only  Scotch  Presbyterian  Orders, 
Archbishop  Grindal  granted  him  a  license  to  minister  the  Sacra- 
ments, &c,  in  "the  whole  Province"  (not  diocese,  as  Chancellor 
Harington  states)  of  Canterbury,  which  was  formally  issued  by 
his  Vicar-General. 

What  is  Mr.  Harington's  reply  to  this  case  ? 

Oh  !  Archbishop  Grindal — the  chaplain  of  Bishop  Ridley,  a 
compiler  of  the  Prayer-Book  of  1559,  the  Bishop  of  London  when 
the  39  Articles  were  drawn  up  in  1562,  the  Archbishop  of  York 
when  they  were  finally  settled  in  1571,  and  the  immediate  suc- 
cessor of  Parker  in  1576  in  the  See  of  Canterbury — did  not  know 
what  the  principles  of  his  Church  were.  He  "  acted"  in  this  mat- 
ter, says  Mr.  Harington,  "  in  direct  opposition  to  the  principles  of 
the  Church  over  which  he  had  presided,"  and  "the  truth  is  not 
affected  by  the  vagaries  of  Archbishop  Grindal."  (P.  45.)  And 
he  sends  him  to  the  Ordinal  in  the  Prayer-Book  (which  perhaps 
the  Chancellor  forgot,  at  the  moment,  he  had  a  principal  hand  in 

*  Entitled,  "  The  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  on  Non-Episcopal  Ordinations, 
ic.  Ilatchard,"  Svo.  pp.  44. 


20 


preparing)  to  learn  better.  I  leave  Grindal's  cause  in  the  hands 
of  the  public. 

But  Mr.  Ilarington  thinks  that  he  has  found  out  another  reason 
for  rejecting  the  argument  derived  from  this  case.  He  says : 
"  After  all,  is  it  clear  how  Morrison  was  ordained  ?  Your  contem- 
porary has  omitted  certain  important  words  which  appear  in  the 
Archbishop's  license,  1  per  manuum  impositionem  admissus  et  or- 
dinatus  fueras.'  "  And  he  then  proceeds  to  remark,  that  "  the 
First  Book  of  Discipline  which  was  recognized  by  the  Kirk  from 
1560  to  1581,  did  not  admit  imposition  of  hands  in  ordination," 
and  he  "leaves  the  solution"  of  this  difficulty  "in  the  hands  of 
Grindal's  admirer." 

The  solution  is  not  far  to  seek.  It  will  be  found  in  "  certain 
important  words  which  appear  in  the  Archbishop's  license,"  which 
Mr.  Ilarington  has  "omitted,"  though  they  form  part  of  the  sen- 
tence in  which  the  words  he  has  quoted  occur.  The  sentence  runs 
thus :  "  Tu  prsefatus  Johannes  Morrison  circiter  quincpue  annos 
elapsos  in  oppido  de  Garvet  in  comitat.  Lothien.  regni  Scotire  per 
generalem  synodum  sive  congregationem  illius  comitatus  in  dicto 
oppido  de  G-arvet  congregatam  juxta  laudabilem  Ecclesivc  Scotise 
reformats;  formam  et  ritum  ad  sacros  ordines  et  sacrosanctum  minis- 
terium  per  manuum  impositionem  admissus  et  ordinatus  fueras." 
(Strype's  Grindal,  App.  p.  596,  Ox.  ed.)  And  Mr.  Ilarington 
will  find,  that  ordination  by  imposition  of  hands  was  common  in  the 
Reformed  Church  of  Scotland  at  that  period.  He  seems  entirely 
to  have  forgotten,  that  the  First  Book  of  Discipline  never  had  the 
sanction  of  the  law,  and  therefore  was  never  enforced.  And  the 
words  themselves  of  that  Book  are  not  a  clear  prohibition,  for  they 
run  thus  :  "  Other  ceremonies  than  the  public  approbation  of  the 
people,  and  the  declaration  of  the  chief  minister,  that  the  person 
there  presented  is  appointed  to  serve  that  Church,  we  cannot  ap- 
prove :  for  albeit  the  Apostles  used  the  imposition  of  hands,  yet 
seeing  the  miracle  is  ceased,  the  using  of  the  ceremony  ice  judge 
not  to  be  necessary.'"  {Spotisivood,  p.  156.)  But  whatever  sense 
may  be  given  to  these  words,  the  Book  had  not  the  sanction  of  the 
law,  and  in  this  point  particularly  was  not  enforced. 

Mr.  Ilarington  adds  (p.  48),  in  a  postscript :  "  When  will 
members  of  the  Church  of  England  be  taught  that  they  can  refute 
the  Papists  only  by  adhering  to  sound  Church  principles  ?  All 
other  attempts  have  been,  and  ever  will  be,  failures." 

Will  he  permit  me  to  remind  him,  that  this  argument  has  re- 
cently been  so  irreparably  damaged,  that  it  is  absolutely  unfit  for 
farther  service  ?  Has  he  forgotten,  that  these  were  almost  the 
very  words  of  Mr.  Newman  himself,  when  he  was  hastening  rapidly 
towards  Home  ?  And  that  his  "  sound  Church  principles"  have 
led  not  himself  only,  but  a  host  of  his  followers,  into  the  arms  of 
Borne  ?  And  how  does  it  happen  that  if  the  "  sound  Church  prin- 
ciples" of  the  Morning  Chronicle  are  The  only  defence  against 


21 


Popery,  they  are  so  different  from  those  by  which  they  who  origin- 
ally came  out  from  Rome  among  us  were  actuated? 

When  Mr.  Harington  says,  that  "the  eminent  anti-Papal  con- 
troversialists in  James  PL's  reign  were  not  Dissenters,  nor  did 
they  argue  on  dissenting  principles,"  I  quite  agree  with  him  ; 
but  neither  did  they  maintain  the  "sound  Church  principles"  of 
those  who  have  assailed  the  present  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
There  is  a  mean  betwixt  the  two,  which  it  would  be  greatly  for 
the  advantage  of  the  interests  of  truth  and  peace  in  our  Church 
could  the  "members  of  the  Church  of  England  be  taught"  to 
maintain  ;  and  which  the  works  of  the  chief  of  these  "  anti-Papal 
controversialists,"  Wake,  Stillingfleet,  Tenison,  Tillotson,  Sher- 
lock, &c,  if  carefully  read,  would  greatly  tend  to  promote. 

In  an  appendix  to  this  Letter,  Chancellor  Harington  gives  an 
extract  from  his  pamphlet  in  reply  to  Mr.  Macaulay,*  in  which 
he  takes  up  the  case  of  Whittingham  and  Travers — cases  which  I 
am  not  concerned  to  defend,  because  I  have  not  referred  to  them ; 
but  as  it  will  always,  I  trust,  be  my  endeavor  fairly  to  meet  any 
facts  or  arguments  that  may  be  adduced  against  the  views  I 
maintain  (truth,  not  party-views,  being  what  I  desire  to  promote), 
I  shall  state  precisely  what  bearing  these  cases  seem  to  me  to 
have  upon  the  point  in  question.  They  have  been  adduced,  as 
Mr.  Harington  correctly  informs  us,  as  instances  of  persons  who 
have  been  allowed  to  minister  in  our  Church  with  only  Non-Epis- 
copal Orders. 

Now,  as  it  respects  the  case  of  Whittingham,  the  Chancellor 
must  permit  me  to  ask  him  to  review  his  account  of  it,  for  he  has 
not  correctly  stated  it ;  and  he  will  find  that,  when  correctly 
stated,  it  assumes  a  very  different  aspect  from  what  he  has  given 
to  it.  Mr.  Harington  says:  "  Whittingham's  '  Orders  were  called 
in  question  by  ArchbisJwp  Whitgift,'  and  a  commission  was  issued 
to  report  thereon  ;  which,  but  for  his  death,  would  have  ended  in 
his  being  '  deprived  (to  quote  Whitgift's  language)  ivithout  special 
grace  and  dispensation'  "  (Pp.  50,  51.)  Mr.  Harington  forgets 
that  Whittingham  was  dead  several  years  before  Whitgift  became 
Archbishop;  not  to  say  that  Whitgift  was  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, and  Whittingham  Dean  of  Durham,  in  the  Province  of 
York ;  and  I  must  suppose  that  the  name  Whitgift,  in  the  first 
part  of  this  sentence,  was  not  a  slip  of  the  pen  for  Sandys, 
because,  if  so,  Mr.  Harington  would  have  referred  to  Sandys's 
account  of  the  matter,  which  mentions  the  reason  for  his  calling 
Whittingham's  Orders  in  question.  But  I  cannot  wholly  account 
for  the  statement ;  as  Strype,  in  one  of  the  very  places  to  which 
Mr.  Harington  refers  us  {Annals,  II.  2,  p.  167,  et  seq.),  tells  us 
from  Sandys's  own  words  what  it  was.  Archbishop  Sandys  was 
"  represented  as  blameworthy  for  calling  in  question  the  Dean's 

*  Entitled,  "The  Reformers  of  the  English  Church  and  Mr.  Macaulay's  History  of 
England.:' 


22 


(Whittingham's)  ministry  ;"  and  in  his  defence  to  the  Lord  Trea- 
surer he  writes  thus  :  "  The  discredit  of  the  Church  of  Geneva  is 
hotly  alleged.  Verily,  my  Lord,  that  Church  is  not  touched. 
For  he  hath  not  received  his  ministry  in  that  Church,  or  by  any 
authority  or  order  from  that  Church,  so  far  as  yet  can  appear. 
Neither  was  there  any  English  Church  in  Germany  that  attempted 
the  like,  neither  needed  they  to  have  done  ;  having  among  them- 
selves sufficient  ministers  to  supply  the  room.  But  if  his  ministry, 
without  authority  of  God  or  man,  unthout  law,  order,  or  example 
of  any  Church,  may  be  current,  take  heed  to  the  sequel." 
{Strype,  Ann.  II.  2,  p.  167,  8,  and  App.  620.)  And  the  Memo- 
randum of  Archbishop  Sandys's  Chancellor,  on  the  result  of  an 
investigation  into  the  matter,  states:  "  W.  W.,  now  Dean  of 
Durham,  hath  not  proved,  that  he  was  orderly  made  minister  at 
Geneva,  according  to  the  order  of  the  Geneva  [book  or  office]  by 
public  authority  established  there."  {Strype,  ib.  p.  170.)  The 
objection  of  Archbishop  Sandys  therefore  was,  that  he  had  not 
been  ordained  according  to  the  order  of  the  Genevan  or  any 
Church,  and  had  not  in  fact  received  any  sort  of  ordination. 

Whittingham's  case,  therefore,  is,  to  say  the  least,  rather 
against  Mr.  Harington  than  in  his  favor ;  for  it  would  seem 
likely,  from  the  account  of  the  matter  thus  given,  that  Arch- 
bishop Sandys  would  have  been  satisfied  if  he  had  had  regular 
Genevan  Orders. 

The  case  of  Travers  (who  was  inhibited  by  Archbishop  Whitgift 
from  preaching  on  account  of  his  foreign  ordination)  is  in  itself 
not  very  dissimilar,  for  he  had  never  been  regularly  ordained  in 
any  of  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches ;  and  this  is  particularly 
objected  to  him  by  Wliitgift  in  his  remarks  upon  Travers' s 
Reasons;  but  I  fully  admit  that  it  appears,  from  those  remarks 
that  Archbishop  Wliitgift  held,  that  "the  laws  of  the  realm  re- 
quired, that  such  as  are  to  be  allowed  as  ministers  in  this  Church 
of  England,  should  be  ordained  by  a  Bishop."  (See  Strype's 
Whitgift,  i.  476-80,  and  iii.  182-6.)  In  this  view  he  was  op 
posed  to  his  predecessor  Grindal,  and  also  to  the  generality  of  the 
Bishops  that  immediately  came  after  him  ;  as  appears  from  the 
statement  of  Bishop  Cosin,  a  High  Church  divine,  quoted  by  me 
in  my  pamphlet  on  this  subject  ;*  who,  after  stating  that  "our 
Bisltops"  did  not  reordain  such  persons  before  admitting  them  to 
a  charge  here,  says,  in  direct  opposition  to  Archbishop  Whitgift 
11  Nor  did  our  latcs  require  more  of  him  than  to  declare  his  public 
consent  to  the  religion  received  amongst  us,  and  to  subscribe  the 
Artirhs  established." 

Now,  I  will  not  (as  Mr.  Harington  has  done  by  Grindal)  attac. 
Archbishop  Whitgift  for  "  vagaries,"  but  simply  say  that  the 
weight  of  testimony  is  against  his  view  of  the  subject.  I  am  not 
surprised,  however,  that  so  strict  a  disciplinarian  as  Whitgif 
should  have  adopted  the  view  he  did.    And,  in  the  present  day 

*  Doctr.  of  Church  of  England  on  Non-Episcopal  Ordinations,  p.  29. 


23 


the  question  is  one  of  very  little  importance,  as  the  point  has 
been  decided  by  the  last  Act  of  Uniformity  and  the  additions 
made  to  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal.  But  Mr.  Harington  will, 
perhaps,  permit  me  to  leave  this  question  for  his  consideration  : 
How  it  was  that  if  Archbishop  Whitgift  was  right,  the  additions 
came  to  be  made  to  that  Preface,  and  words  touching  this  matter- 
inserted  in  the  new  Act  of  Uniformity  at  the  Restoration  ?  To 
what  purpose  ? 

But  farther  ;  so  far  as  concerns  the  great  question  now  at  issue, 
Whether  the  Church  of  England  admits  the  validity  of  the  Non- 
Episcopal  orders  of  the  Scotch  and  Foreign  Reformed  Churches 
in  the  abstract,  and  apart  from  the  consideration  of  them  as  legal 
qualifications  for  the  ministry  of  our  own  Church,  such  cases  as 
these  do  not  touch  it.  Archbishop  Whitgift' s  views  on  the  abstract 
question,  Mr.  Harington  may  see  in  the  extracts  I  have  already 
given  from  his  works.* 

Chancellor  Harington,  indeed,  appears  to  quote  (p.  57)  with 
approbation,  a  remark  of  the  Bishop  of  Exeter,  that  our  Church, 
in  not  admitting  to  the  exercise  of  the  ministry  in  her  communion 
persons  not  cpiscopally  ordained,  "  seems  to  imply  the  absolute 
necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination  to  confer  the  ministerial  charac- 
ter ;  for,  by  the  most  universally  admitted  rule  of  Christian  com- 
munion, all  who  are  constituted  Christ's  ministers  in  any  one  por- 
tion of  his  Church,  carry  with  them  their  character  and  commis- 
sion in  every  other  into  which  they  may  migrate." 

But  the  Bishop  has  here  just  assumed  what  he  had  to  prove, 
namely,  that  this  rule  is  admitted  by  our  Church  at  the  present 
day.  It  may  have  been  a  "universally  admitted  rule''  at  one  time 
in  the  Church,  but  circumstances  may  have  occurred  to  interrupt 
its  universal  admission  on  more  than  one  account,  and  in  more  than 
one  way.  And  such  I  submit  is  the  case.  The  bishop's  statement 
is  merely  an  attempt,  more  s?to,  to  make  his  assertion  pass  as  a 
proof  of  the  rule  of  our  Church,  and  hence  enforce  the  doctrine  he 
wishes  to  establish. 

One  word  on  the  extract  given  by  Mr.  Harington  (pp.  49,  50) 
from  Dr.  Bowden's  Letters  to  Miller  (Letter  15),  vol.  ii.  p.  36. 
With  respect  to  that  part  of  it  which  refers  to  the  Act  of  1571, 
and  argues  that  the  passage  in  it,  sometimes  referred  to  on  this 
subject,  was  passed  with  a  view  principally  to  the  Romanists,  I 
fully  agree  with  him  ;  but  when  he  goes  on  to  say:  "  Let  it  far- 
ther be  considered,  that  it  was  the  avowed  doctrine  of  the  Church 
throughout  the  whole  reign  of  Elizabeth,  that  Episcopal  ordination 
was  of  Divine  appointment,  and  then  it  will  be  evident  that  the 
Act  in  question  could  not  have  been  designed  to  indulge,  under 
the  specified  condition,  those  who  had  received  no  other  Orders 
but  Presbyterian" — he  seems  to  me  entirely  mistaken, 
j   If  this  passage  refers  to  the  language  of  the  Ordinal,  when  it 


*  lb.  pp.  19,  20. 


24 


speaks  of  "the  avowed  doctrine  of  the  Church,"  then  the  argument 
wholly  fails.  For  the  utmost  that  can  be  deduced  from  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Ordinal  is,  that  Episcopacy  was  of  Apostolical  institu- 
tion, which  may  be  fully  admitted  by  those  who  hold  the  Non- 
Episcopal  Orders  of  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches  to  be  valid. 
And  if  it  refers  to  the  language  of  the  divines  of  our  Church  of 
that  day,  it  is  entirely  incorrect,  as  the  passages  I  have  already 
given  from  their  writings*  fully  show ;  for  they  did  not  all  even 
hold  that  Episcopacy  was  so  far  of  Divine  origin  as  that  it  was 
regularly  instituted  by  the  Apostles.  And  even  if  they  had  so 
held,  the  conclusion  sought  to  be  established  would  not  have  fol- 
lowed. Those  who  did  hold  that  doctrine  communicated  with  the 
ministers  of  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches  as  men  whose  minis- 
try was  perfectly  valid,  and  their  Churches  true  Churches  of  Christ. 

On  this  point,  therefore,  I  must  dissent  from  Dr.  Bowden ;  and 
it  is  evident,  from  Bishop  Cosin's  statement  already  quoted,  that 
our  Bishops  (speaking  generally)  took  the  same  view  of  the  case.f 
The  clause,  though  it  probably  had  the  Romanists  particularly  in 
view,  was  worded  so  as  to  include  the  case  of  others  also. 

In  fact,  Dr.  Bowden  himself,  though  speaking  of  Episcopacy  as 
a  Divine  appointment,  only  means,  as  he  himself  tells  us,  that  it 
was  instituted  by  the  Apostles ;  and  that  will  not  prove  its  indis- 
pensable necessity  for  all  times,  places,  and  circumstances. 

Of  Dr.  Bowden's  sentiments  on  the  great  question  at  issue  be- 
tween Mr.  Harington  and  myself,  I  shall  have  occasion  to  speak 
presently,  when  noticing  Mr.  Harington's  reference  to  him  as  a 
witness  in  his  favor. 

Chancellor  Harington's  Second  Letter  is  entitled,  The  Witness 
of  Anglican  Divines  for  -Episcopacy.  Now,  if  the  object  of  the 
Letter  was  truly  described  in  these  words,  I  must  say,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Mr.  Harington  himself  to  his  opponent,  that  his  whole 
Catena  is  "  nihil  ad  rem,"  that  he  might  have  "quadruplicated  his 
authorities,  which  he  might  easily  have  done,"  and  "not  have 
touched  the  question  at  issue  ;  for  nobody  doubts  that  our  Angli- 
can divines  have  witnessed  "  for  Episcopacy ;"  and  I  can  well 
afford  to  be  liberal  enough  to  throw  him  in  the  addition  against 
Presbyterianism. 

Mr.  Harington  tells  us  that  his  opponent  "  has  strung  together 
a  Catena  of  authorities  which  seem  to  recognize  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  Ordination  in  certain  cases  of  necessity."  (P.  55.) 
I  will  take  this  as  a  true  account  of  the  matter,  for  I  have  not 
seen  the  article,  and  am  not  defending  it  (as  I  know  nothing  of  it), 
but  what  I  deem  to  be  the  truth  in  reply  to  Mr.  Harington's  own 
statements  in  this  Letter. 

This  Catena  Mr.  Harington  thinks  useless,  because,  he  says, 
the  question  is  this :    "  Whether  the  Church  Catholic  has  not, 


See  "  Doctrine,  &c."  pp.  17-2S. 


t  Ibid,  p.  30. 


25 


from  the  first  to  the  nineteenth  century,  maintained  the  Divine 
institution  of  Episcopacy,  recognizing  no  other  system  of  Church 
polity  ?  And  whether  the  Church  of  England,  as  a  portion  of  the 
Church  Catholic,  does  not  altogether  exclude  ordination  by  Pres- 
byters ?" 

Now,  with  all  respect  for  Chancellor  Harington,  I  must  say,  that 
this  statement  is  calculated  for  anything  rather  than  to  show 
clearly  the  real  point  at  issue,  and  might  leave  disputants  to  argue 
forever  to  no  purpose,  each  having  a  different  proposition  in  view 
in  his  arguments.  I  must  remind  Mr.  Harington  of  the  old  say- 
ing, that  dolus  latet  in  generalibus.  When  he  says  that  the  ques- 
tion is,  whether  the  Church  of  England  excludes  ordination  by 
Presbyters,  does  he  mean  that  she  does  this  so  far  as  permission 
to  minister  in  her  own  communion  is  concerned,  or  as  it  respects 
all  Churches,  all  over  the  world?  If  the  former  (and  a  considera- 
ble portion  of  his  testimonies  and  remarks  apply  only  to  this), 
nobody  doubts  it ;  the  law  is  now  clear  ;  there  is  no  controversy 
on  the  subject.  And  the  reference  made  to  such  cases  as  that  of 
Morrison,  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that,  until  the  Re- 
storation, some  of  the  highest  authorities  of  our  Church  held  that 
there  was  nothing  to  prevent  persons  ordained  by  Presbyters  even 
ministering  in  our  own  Church  ;  which  is  an  undeniable  fact,  and 
greatly  strengthens  the  argument  for  the  point  at  issue.  If  Mr. 
Harington  holds  that  Archbishop  Whitgift  took  a  sounder  view  of 
the  subject  than  the  generality  of  his  brethren  did,  be  it  so.  The 
matter  is  scarcely  worth  arguing  now.  And  Archbishop  Whitgift 
is  wholly  with  us  in  the  only  question  now  at  issue.  But  if  he 
means  the  latter,  then  the  Catena  which  he  tells  us  is  nihil  ad  rem, 
is  obviously  multum  ad  rem.  And  the  latter  is  the  question.  He 
is  well  aware  that  the  letter  of  the  present  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury (out  of  which  this  controversy  arose)  referred  not  to  the  valid- 
ity of  Presbyterian  Orders  for  ministering  in  our  Church,  which 
our  laws  forbid,  but  to  the  question  of  their  validity  in  the  ab- 
stract in  the  Church  of  Christ,  when  given  under  the  circumstances 
in  which  certain  Foreign  Reformed  Churches  have  been  placed  by 
the  corruptions  of  the  Papacy. 

I  cannot  quite  understand,  therefore,  how  the  Chancellor  could 
say,  after  adding  a  few  remarks  about  Morrison  and  the  Church  of 
Alexandria,  "here  the  discussion  might  fairly  close."  If  he  had 
closed  it  there,  he  would  have  closed  it  without  touching  the  point 
in  question.  For  if  even  the  writer  in  the  Herald  so  mistook  his 
cause  as  to  make  it  rest  upon  a  supposed  right  of  Presbyterianly 
ordained  persons  to  minister  in  our  Church,  it  surely  would  have 
been  better  for  the  Chancellor  to  have  set  him  right  on  this  point, 
and  then  grappled  with  the  real  question  at  issue. 

But  he  has,  in  fact,  added  a  long  Catena  of  authorities  on  the 
subject  from  our  English  divines — authorities  which  I  cannot  but 
think  he  meant  to  prove,  that  our  Church  not  only  forbids  those 
in  Presbyterian  Orders  to  minister  in  our  Churches,  but  disallows 


26 


the  validity  of  such  Orders  in  the  abstract,  nullifying  the  ministra- 
tions of  those  who  hold  them  throughout  the  -whole  Church  of 
Christ  ;  and  as  such  I  proceed  to  consider  them  ;  for  in  any  other 
view  they  are  totally  irrelevant  to  the  great  question  at  issue. 

One  remark  more  on  his  definition  of  the  question  under  discus- 
sion. It  would  surely  have  been  more  unambiguous  to  speak  of  the 
Apostolical  institution  of  Episcopacy,  than  to  use  the  epithet 
Divine.  I  am  quite  aware  that  it  has  been  frequently  used,  and 
also  of  the  sense  in  which  it  maybe  legitimately  applied;  but  I  am 
also  aware,  that  whenever  the  matter  has  been  controverted,  it  has 
been  found  necessary  to  point  out  two  or  three  senses  in  which  the 
word  "  Divine  "  may  be  used,  and  (with  very  few  exceptions)  to 
admit  that  in  one  only  is  it  applicable  to  the  origin  of  Episcopacy, 
namely,  as  instituted  by  men  divinely  inspired ;  and  in  a  formal 
definition  of  this  kind,  a  vague  phraseology  is  surely  to  be  avoided. 
Now  of  the  Apostolical  institution  of  Episcopacy  I  make  no  doubt; 
but  then  I  have  equally  little  doubt  of  the  Apostolical  institution 
of  the  practice  of  anointing  the  sick  with  oil.  And  though  I  would 
not  place  the  importance  of  one  on  a  par  with  the  importance  of 
the  other,  yet  if  the  mere  fact  of  a  thing  having  been  Apostoli- 
cally  instituted,  renders  its  observance  indispensably  necessary  in 
all  ages  and  all  parts  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  the  one  of  these 
is  as  indispensably  necessary  as  the  other.  And  if  this  argument 
does  not  hold  good,  then  the  argument  of  Mr.  Harington  for  the 
indispensable  necessity  of  Episcopacy  from  this  fact  falls  to  the 
ground. 

There  is  also  one  other  point  on  which  I  would  offer  a  word 
before  proceeding  to  a  consideration  of  Chancellor  Ilarington's 
authorities,  because  I  know  that  much  stress  is  often  laid  upon  it, 
and  that  is,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  term  necessity  when  used  by 
some  of  our  divines  as  alone  justifying  Presbyterian  ordination  in 
a  Church.  It  is  often  said,  that  such  and  such  Presbyterian 
Churches  might  now,  if  they  pleased,  receive  Episcopacy  from 
more  than  one  Episcopal  Church,  and,  therefore,  that  they  cannot 
urge  the  plea  of  necessity.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  word  necessity 
was  not  used  by  them  in  this  strict  sense.  I  refer,  in  proof  of 
this,  to  the  language  of  Saravia  and  Crakanthorp,*  both  of  them 
men  in  the  highest  repute  with  my  opponents  ;  and  the  latter  of 
whom  distinctly  says,  speaking  of  his  wish  that  those  Churches 
would  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  they  then  possessed  of 
obtaining  Episcopal  Orders,  "  sed  optamus,  non  cogimus:  jus  et 
imperium  in  eorum  Ecclesias  nee  habemus  nos,  nec  desideramus." 
And  this  opportunity  they  have  had  for  more  than  two  centuries 
just  as  much  as  at  the  present  day ;  so  that  all  the  testimonies  of 
our  divines  since  that  period,  such  as  Mason,  Cosin,  <fcc.  kc, 
were  written  under  similar  circumstances  to  those  which  now  exist. 

It  is  clear,  also,  that  when  Saravia  spoke  of  necessity,  he  was 
alluding  to  a  necessity  arising  from  the  corruption  of  the  Bishops 

*  See  "  Doctrine,  &c."  pp.  22,  39. 


27 


in  any  particular  Church  for  the  sound  presbyters  of  that  Church 
to  perpetuate  their  order  by  admitting  others  to  it  themselves, 
though  under  ordinary  circumstances  they  would  have  had  no 
right  to  do  so.*  He  was  contemplating  each  Church  as  an  inde- 
pendent community  that  had  a  right  to  order  its  own  a  flairs. 

And  when  it  is  urged,  that  no  necessity  exists  now  for  the  Fo- 
reign llcformed  Churches  lacking  Episcopacy,  because  certain 
Episcopal  Churches  would  give  them  Bishops,  I  am  much  inclined 
to  doubt  whether  even  this  could  be  proved,  for  there  may  be  still 
many  impediments,  some  arising  out  of  their  relations  to  the  dif- 
ferent States  in  which  they  are  found,  to  their  reception  of  Episco- 
pacy, whatever  may  be  the  willingness  of  other  Churches  to  give  it 
to  them. 

Mr.  Harington's  first  quotations  are  taken  from  the  Ordinal  as 
it  stood  previous  to  1662.  Against  the  interpretation  which  it  is 
sought  to  affix  to  these,  we  have  first  the  practice  of  the  Bishops  of 
that  day,  as  reported  by  Bishop  Cosin,|  the  23d  Article  ;J  and  the 
fact  that  when,  at  the  Restoration,  it  was  wished  to  exclude  those 
in  Presbyterian  Orders  from  ministering  in  our  Church,  words 
were  added  for  that  purpose. 

He  then  proceeds  to  his  Catena,  which  is  formed  from  the  works 
of  Cranmer,  Whitgift,  Jewel,  Bollock,  Bancroft,  Morton,  Bilson, 
Andrews,  Hall,  Hammond,  Hooker,  Bramhall,  Ileylin,  Mason, 
Cosin,  Potter,  Sanderson,  Downame,  Beveridge,  Taylor,  Barrow, 
Sage,  Stillingfleet,  Brett,  Madox,  Leslie,  Dodwell,  Hickes,  Burs- 
cough,  Milbourn,  Bowden,  Daubeney,  Laud,  the  author  of  Juxuv 
BaGLUxr;,  the  author  of  The  Beauty  of  the  Church  of  England, 
Peter  Du  Moulin,  and  Thomas's  Answer  to  Owen. 

Now  I  suppose  it  will  strike  the  most  cursory  reader  tha  t  several 
of  these  authors  were  Non-jurors.  Under  this  description  come 
Brett,  Leslie,  Dodwell,  Ilickes  ;  a  school  of  writers  whose  remarks 
on  the  very  point  tve  are  now  considering,  obtained  for  them,  from 
one  of  the  most  eminent  of  "  the  eminent  anti-Papal  controversial- 
ists in  James  II.'s  reign,"  to  whom  Mr.  Ilarington  has  referred 
us,  the  appellation  of  "furiosi  scriptores."  §  I  will,  therefore, 
willingly  make  Mr.  Ilarington  a  present  of  them. 

Of  the  others,  it  can  hardly  be  worth  while  to  spend  our  time 
upon  the  opinions  of  such  very  small  personages  as  Robert  Burs- 
cough,  Luke  Milbourn,  the  author  of  The  Beauty  of  the  Church 
of  England  (from  whom  Mr.  Ilarington  has  given  us  five  pages), 
and  John  Thomas,  whose  work  we  are  told  is  "  strongly  recom- 
mended by  Dr.  Ilickes"  the  Non-juror.  Moreover,  Bishop  Sage 
and  Dr.  Robert  Pollock  belong  to  Scotland,  not  England.  And 
of  the  latter  of  these  I  would  ask  Mr.  Ilarington  himself,  whether 
he  is  prepared  to  maintain  that  Dr.  Rollock,  who  acted  in  the 

*  See  the  extracts  from  him  in  mv  former  pamphlet,  pp.  21,  22. 

t  See  the  pamphlet  already  referred  to,  p.  29. 

t  lb.  pp.  26,  27. 

$  See  former  pamphlet,  p.  42. 


28 


General  Assemblies  of  the  Presbyterian  Kirk  of  Scotland,  and  was 
in  the  communion  of  that  Church  till  his  death  in  1599,  believed 
the  ministrations  of  the  pastors  of  that  Church  to  be  invalid. 
With  the  rest  I  will  now  proceed  to  deal. 

I  will  take  the  case  of  Dr.  Bowden,  the  American,  first ;  because 
it  remarkably  illustrates  the  real  nature  of  the  whole  Catena. 
Chancellor  Harington  has  made  great  use  of  Dr.  Bowden,  taking 
some  of  his  authorities  from  him.  And  though  I  cannot  think  all 
Dr.  Bowden's  arguments  valid,  or  his  authorities  rightly  applied, 
his  work  bearing,  to  my  mind,  marks  of  haste  and  inaccuracy,  yet 
I  quite  admit  it  to  be,  as  a  whole,  a  valuable  defence  of  Episco- 
pacy. It  will  be  well,  then,  to  ascertain  what  the  object  of  Dr. 
Bowden  was  ;  it  -was,  to  prove  against  the  assertion  of  the  Presby- 
terian Dr.  Miller  that  Episcopacy  was  a  mere  human  institution, 
that,  on  the  contrary,  it  was  "  of  Divine  institution  ;"  meaning  by 
these  terms,  not  that  it  was  ordained  by  any  "  express  command" 
of  God  or  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  he  repudiates,  but  that  it 
was  instituted  by  the  Apostles,  "men  divinely  inspired,"  and 
therefore,  at  the  least,  had  "a  Divine  sanction."  (Lett.  17.)  And 
all  his  arguments  and  authorities  are  directed  to  the  establishment 
of  this  point.  Consequently,  they  do  not  touch  the  question  now 
at  issue,  which  is — not  whether  Episcopacy  was  or  was  not  instituted 
by  the  Apostles,  but— whether  Orders  derived  from  an  uninter- 
rupted succession  of  duly  consecrated  Bishops  from  the  time  of  the 
Apostles,  are  so  necessary  to  the  existence  of  a  Church  and  a  valid 
ministry  that  neither  can  exist  without  them.  And  unfortunately 
for  Mr.  Harington,  Dr.  Bowden  explicitly  and  expressly  repudi- 
ates such  a  notion.  He  says  :  "  Every  Episcopal  writer  that  I 
have  ever  met  with  maintains,  that  this  government  is  not  absolute- 
ly necessary  to  the  very  salvation  of  the  Church,  but  that  it  is  so 
necessary,  that  the  Church  cannot  be  in  a  sound  and  perfect  state 
without  it."  The  latter,  of  course,  every  Episcopalian  must  think. 
Again:  "I  am  not  endeavoring  to  unchurch  other  denomina- 
tions. This  is  not  the  question  in  this  discussion."  But  this  is 
the  question  between  the  Archbishop  and  his  assailants.  And  Dr. 
Bowden  goes  on  to  say :  "  What  the  essence  of  a  Church  is, 
neither  Presbyterians  nor  Episcopalians  have  as  yet  determined. 
Upon  the  question,  What  defect  unchurches,  unanimity  is  not  to 

be  looked  for  When  you  shall  have  the  good  fortune 

to  agree  among  yourselves,  what  is  the  precise  point  at  which  a 
Church  loses  that  character,  perhaps  your  discoveries  will  lead 
Episcopalians  to  unanimity;  till  then,  I  fear,  we  shall  not  be 
agreed,  whether  the  Divine  right  of  Episcopacy  necessarily  involves 
the  consequence,  that  denominations  which  have  not  Bishops,  when 
it  proceeds  from  necessity,  want  a  valid  ministry  ;  and  whether, 
again,  the  want  of  such  a  ministry  completely  unchurches."  He 
does  not  therefore  suppose,  that  all  true  Episcopalians  must  hold 
that  such  denominations  "  toant  a  valid  ministry,"  and  he  did 


20 


not  apparently  think  so  himself.  He  adds  :  "  Wake,  Bingham, 
Pretyman,  and  Gisborne,  assert  the  Apostolic  institution  of  Epis- 
copacy. .  .  Bingham  and  Wake,  particularly  the  former,  are 
among  its  ablest  advocates.  Yet  these  four  divines  do  not  consider 
it  as  essential  to  the  very  being  of  a  Church.  When  Christians 
can  have  it,  they  ought  to  have  it ;  but  when  they  cannot,  necessity 
frees  them  from  all  blame.  This  appears  to  be  the  more  com- 
mon opinion  of  Episeopalians.n  " I  acknowledge  that  they  [the 
Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England]  do  not  consider  it  as  essen- 
tial to  the  very  being  of  a  Church;  but  after  making  this  conces- 
sion, they  insist  upon  it  as  necessary  to  a  well  organized,  sound, 
and  perfectly  Apostolical  Church  ;  and  that  a  departure  from  it 
where  it  is, is  an  unjustifiable  schism;  except  when  a  Church  imposes 
upon  its  members  sinful  terms  of  communion."  (Lett.  17.)  I 
give  the  context,  that  I  may  not  be  supposed  anxious  to  keep  back 
any  part  of  Dr.  Bowden's  views. 

Notwithstanding,  therefore,  Dr.  Bowden's  opinion  of  the  Apos- 
tolical institution  of  Episcopacy,  he  admits,  that  it  may  reasonably 
be  maintained, and  is  "the  more  common  opinion  of  Episcopalians," 
that  it  "is  not  essential  to  the  very  being  of  a  Church,"  and  that 
there  may  be  "a  valid  ministry"  without  it.  Consequently  Dr. 
Bowden's  testimony  is  worse  than  useless  to  Mr.  Harington.  It 
is  opposed  to  him.  And  his  whole  Catena,  with  the  exception  of 
his  Non-juror  witnesses,  and  perhaps  one  or  two  others  of  a  similar 
school,  are  at  best  in  the  same  predicament,  and  some  of  them 
still  more  strongly  opposed  to  his  views. 

Dr.  Bowden  has  justly  drawn  a  distinction  between  the  views  of 
Episcopalians  on  the  subject,  admitting  that  some  of  them  main- 
tain the  higher  ground  that  a  regular  Episcopal  succession  is  es- 
sential to  the  very  being  of  a  Church,  and  that  there  cannot  be  a 
valid  ministry  without  it;  and  I  am  quite  ready  to  concede  to  Mr. 
Harington  that  such  Episcopalians  there  have  been,  and  now  are, 
in  our  Church.  But  then  he  must  allow  me  to  request  him  to  con- 
fine his  Catena  to  such  as  do  hold  this;  and  I  can  assure  him  that 
I  will  then  leave  him  in  quiet  possession  of  it,  and  not  contend 
with  him  for  a  moment  as  one  who  has  any  right  in  those  "furiosi  , 
scriptores,"  as  Archbishop  Wake  called  them,  who  take  such  a 
view.  But  when  he  lays  claim  to  the  support  of  those  who  have 
distinctly  repudiated  such  a  notion,  and  the  whole  glory  of  his 
Catena  is  derived  from  names  so  used,  he  must  excuse  my  protest 
against  such  an  (unintentional)  misrepresentation  of  their  views. 
It  is  obvious,  on  the  first  glance  at  his  Catena,  that  he  has  mixed 
together,  without  discrimination,  divines  who  notoriously  differed 
in  their  judgment  on  the  very  point  under  discussion;  and  has 
only  obtained  an  appearance  of  their  combined  support  by  an  in- 
accurate representation  of  the  question  at  issue. 

I  must  again  repeat,  that  that  question  is  not  the  Apostolical 
Institution  of  Episcopacy,  which  I  hold  as  strongly  as  Chancellor 


30 


Harington  can  do;*  but  whether  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches, 
considering  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  they  have  been 
placed,  do  or  do  not  possess  a  valid  ministry. 

The  first  remark,  therefore,  which  I  have  to  make  upon  all  the 
authorities  worth  noticing  in  the  Catena  is,  that  the  testimonies 
quoted  do  not  touch  the  question.  And  the  second  is,that  many  of 
the  best  of  the  authors  here  quoted,  have  elseivhere  expressly  op- 
posed the  notion  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  Episcopacy  to  consti- 
tute a  valid  ministry.  This  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  ;  and  a 
proof  of  this  will  be  the  best  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  first  re- 
mark. For  if  many  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  authors  so  quoted 
have  expressed  themselves  in  the  most  express  and  explicit  terms 
in  favor  of  the  view  of  which  Chancellor  Harington  quotes  them 
as  the  opponents,  such  language  as  Mr.  Harington  has  quoted 
from  them,  does  not  prove,  in  the  case  of  any  who  use  it,  that  they 
held  what  he  seeks  to  establish. 

Without,  therefore,  going  through  the  whole  Catena  (which  is 
quite  unnecessary),  I  shall  content  myself  with  showing  what 
many  of  the  best  of  his  witnesses  have  said  elsewhere. 

Of  Cranmer  I  will  merely  say,  that  it  shows  great  courage  even 
to  name  him  in  such  a  matter.  I  shall  only  refer,  in  reply,  to 
the  documents  I  have  already  quoted  in  my  former  pamphlet;! 
showing  his  entire  repudiation  of  the  notion  Mr.  Harington  seeks 
to  fix  upon  him. 

Of  Whitgift  I  say  the  same,  and  make  the  same  reference.! 
And  I  must  add  that,  as  Mr.  Harington's  quotation  is  from  the 
Archbishop's  letter  to  Beza,  it  would  have  been  better  if  he  had 
told  us,  that  the  letter  is  addressed  to  Beza  as  his  umost  dear  bro- 
ther in  Christ,"  and  superscribed  to  him  as  "his  most  dear  brother  and 
colleague  in  Christ,  and  faithful  pastor  of  the  Genevan  Church." 
For  I  take  it  for  granted,  that  though  the  extract  is  given  from 
Dr.  Bowden,  Mr.  Harington  must  be  familiar  with  the  Letter 
itself  as  given  by  Strype.  {Life  of  Whitgift,  ii.  pp.  159,  173.) 

For  Bishop  Jeivel,  the  passages  I  have  given§  from  his  writings 
so  completely  refute  the  interpretation  which  Mr.  Harington 
would  affix  to  the  passages  he  has  quoted,  that  nothing  need  be 
added  here. 

Archbishop  Bancroft's  express  testimony  in  favor  of  the  validity 
of  the  Orders  of  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches,  I  have  given 
above, ||  and  in  my  former  pamphlet.^f 

Bishop  Morton  s  direct  recognition  of  the  right  of  Presbyters  to 
ordain,  when  the  Bishops  of  a  Church  have  departed  from  the 
true  faith,  I  have  given  in  the  same  place.**  In  fact,  Mr.  Har- 
ington merely  gives  a  general  reference  to  his  work,  entitled, 
"  The  Episcopacy  of  the  Church  of  England  justified  to  be  Apos- 

*  I  may  perhaps  be  permitted  to  refer  as  evidence  of  this  to  my  defence  of  this  view 
nearly  ten  years  ago,  in  my  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice,  vol.  ii.  pp.  60-72.  And  id 
pp.  72-110,  1  have  discussed  the  question  now  at  issue,  and  have  seen  no  reason  to 
change  the  ground  I  there  took  on  the  subject. 

t  See  pp.  13— 1G.  }  See  pp.  19,20.  §  Seep.  18. 

II  See  pp.  7  and  15,  1G,  above.    IT  See  p.  34.  •*  See  p.  36. 


31 


tolical,"  a  proof  of  -which  does  not  (to  use  Mr.  Harington's  own 
•words)  "  touch  the  question  at  issue." 

Bishop  Hall  says,  that  "  there  is  no  difference  in  any  essential 
matter  betwixt  the  Church  of  England  and  her  sisters  of  the  Re- 
formation ;''  and  as  to  the  difference  in  the  form  of  church  govern- 
ment, "we  all  profess  this  form  not  to  be  essential  to  the  being 
of  a  Church."* 

Hooker  tells  us,  with  reference  to  the  case  of  Beza,  that  "there 
may  be  sometimes  very  just  and  sufficient  reason  to  allow  Ordina- 
tion made  without  a  Bishop,"  and  that  there  is  no  law  by  which 
"  the  Lord  hath  appointed  Presbyters  for  ever  to  be  under  the 
regiment  of  Bishops,"!  &c. 

Of  Archdeacon  Mason  we  have  a  work  the  very  object  of  which 
is  to  vindicate  "  the  validity  of  the  Ordination  of  the  ministers  of 
the  Reformed  Churches  beyond  the  seas;"  a  work  originally 
forming  part  of  the  very  book  to  which  Chancellor  Ilarington 
refers,  to  prove  Mason  an  advocate  of  his  own  views. J 

Bishop  Cosin  has  treated  expressly  of  the  same  subject,  and 
taken  the  same  ground ;  and  acted  upon  it  when  in  exile,  by  com- 
municating with  those  Churches,  and  exhorting  others  to  do  so. 
His  testimony  is  very  full  and  distinct.§ 

Bishop  Bownham,  in  the  very  same  work  that  Chancellor 
Ilarington  quotes,  expressly  defends  the  Ordinations  of  the 
Foreign  Reformed  Churches,  and  formally  repudiates  the  notion 
that  because  the  Episcopal  form  of  church  government  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Scriptures,  therefore  it  is  "perpetually  and  un- 
changeably necessary  in  all  Churches. "|| 

So  that  all  these  authors,  the  cream  of  the  Catena,  have  clearly 
and  expressly  advocated  the  doctrine  which  Chancellor  Ilarington 
seeks  to  overthrow  by  their  testimony. 

His  nominal  thesis  of  the  Apostolical  institution  of  Episcopacy 
they  will  no  doubt  fully  support ;  but  his  real  one,  of  the  indis- 
pensable necessity  of  Episcopacy  to  a  valid  ministry  and  a  real 
Church,  they  distinctly  oppose. 

And  consequently,  as  to  all  the  remaining  authors  in  his  list 
who  have  spoken  in  similar  terms,  such  passages  as  he  has  quoted 
from  them  prove  nothing  as  to  their  views  on  the  real  question  at 
issue.  And  the  authors  to  whom  I  have  referred  are  amply  suffi- 
cient to  show  what  the  views  of  the  great  body  of  our  most  learned 
and  able  divines  have  been  on  this  subject.^ 

My  belief  is,  that  even  the  highest  of  our  High  Church  divines 
of  former  times  (excepting  of  course  such  men  as  the  Non-jurors, 
Hickes,  Dodwell,  &c.)  would  have  declined  to  take  the  ground  now 
occupied  by  the  Archbishop's  opponents. 

For  instance,  Bishop  Andreivs,  whom   Mr.  Ilarington  has 

*?eelb.  t  See  lb.  pp.  20,  21. 

t  See  extracts  and  a  proof  of  its  genuineness  given,  lb.  pp.  33,  39. 
4  See  it  given  lb.  pp.  39-41. 
II  See  the  extracts  given  lb.  p.  36. 

II  Some  further  testimonies  will  be  found  in  my  former  pamphlet. 


32 


quoted  as  a  witness  in  favor  of  his  views.  High  as  Bishop 
Andrews  might  place  the  claims  of  Episcopacy,  he  distinctly 
repudiates  the  notion  of  unchurching  those  that  are  under  a  differ- 
ent form  of  church  government.   (See  my  former  pamphlet,  p.  32.) 

So  again  Archbishop  Bramhall  (another  of  Mr.  Harington's 
witnesses)  ;  who  reminds  us  that  "  there  is  great  difference 
betioeen  a  valid  and  a  regular  Ordination."  I  have  given  in 
my  former  pamphlet  (pp.  32,  33)  abundant  proof  of  the  nature  of 
his  views  ;  but  I  will  here  add  a  remark  in  reply  to  Chancellor 
Harington's  argument  that  because  he  reordained  some  who  had 
only  received  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  Presbyters,  therefore 
he  must  have  considered  their  Orders  as  altogether  invalid.  I 
quite  grant,  that  the  reference  that  has  been  sometimes  made  to 
the  circumstance  here  referred  to,  as  if  it  proved  that  Bramhall 
admitted  the  validity  of  such  Orders  because  he  said  he  would  not 
discuss  the  question  of  their  validity,  but  advised  the  parties  to  be 
ordained  in  order  to  obtain  a  legal  title  to  their  tithes,  is  one 
which  always  appeared  to  me  a  mistake.  The  words  in  the  Let- 
ters of  Orders,  "ordines,  si  quos  habuit,"  appear  to  me  to  prove 
his  wish  to  leave  the  question  of  the  validity  of  their  Orders 
wholly  undecided.  But  then  on  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Harington 
cannot  quote  him  as  a  witness  against  the  validity  of  such  Orders, 
when  he  himself  carefully  abstained  from  committing  himself  to 
that  view,  and  formally  and  expressly  declined  to  determine  the 
question  (nec  validitatem  aut  invaliditatem  eorundem  determi- 
nantes)  ;  and  as  to  the  act  of  Ordination,  he  himself  supplies  the 
answer  to  Mr.  Harington's  suggestion  that  he  would  not  have  re- 
ordained one  who  in  his  vieAV  had  been  already  ordained,  when  he 
says,  that  in  ordaining  he  was  "  solummodo  supplentes  quicquid 
prius  defuit  per  canones  Ecclesise  Anglicanse  rcquisitum,  et  pro- 
videntes  paci  Ecclesue  ut  schismatis  tollatur  occasio,  et  conscientiis 
fidclium  satisfiat."  And  it  must  also  be  remembered,  that  the 
case  of  Presbyterians  ordained  in  Ireland  during  the  great  rebel- 
lion was  very  different  from  that  of  the  ministers  of  the  Foreign 
lleformed  Churches,  with  which  alone  we  are  now  concerned;  and 
this  difference  the  Archbishop  recognizes  in  the  very  document 
from  which  I  am  quoting,  observing :  "  Multo  minus  omnes  Ordines 
sacros  Ecclesiarum  Forinsecarum  condemnantes,  quos  proprio 
Judici  relinquimus." 

How  far,  therefore,  Chancellor  Harington's  Catena  will  benefit 
his  cause,  I  leave  him  and  the  public  to  judge.  For  his  nominal 
thesis,  he  might  easily  have  multiplied  his  authorities  tenfold,  and 
that  without  going  to  such  extreme  authors  as  Hickes,  and  Dod- 
well,  and  Brett,  but  he  would  not  have  touched  the  real  point  he 
wishes  to  establish.  And  a  large  portion  of  his  best  witnesses 
have,  in  other  parts  of  their  writings,  expressly  and  explicitly 
advocated  the  view  he  has  been  laboring  to  overthrow  by  their 
authority. 


Dec.  22, 1851. 


A  REPLY 

TO  THE 

BISHOP  OF  EXETER'S 

SECOND  ARRAIGNMENT  OF  HIS  METROPOLITAN 

IN  HIS 

Eetter  to  tije  Ercpcaeoit  of  Qlotncs, 

OrrUGNING  THE 

VALIDITY  OF  THE  ORDERS  OF  THE  FOREIGN 
NON-EPISCOPAL  CHURCHES. 

TO  WHICH  IS  ANNEXED 

A  REJOINDER  TO  CHANCELLOR  HARINGTON, 

ON  THE  SAME  SUBJECT. 

"Diotrcphcs,  who  loveth  to  have  the  pre-eminence  Neither  doth  he  himself  receive  the  bre- 
thren, and  forbiddeth  them  that  would,  and  casteth  them  out  of  the  Church."— 3  John,  9, 10. 

BY 

W.  GOODE,  M.A.,  F.S.A. 

Hector  of  AWtnllows  the  Gn"t  awl  L-ss,  London. 

®l)irb  (Edition. 


NEW  YORK: 
A.  D.  F.  RANDOLPH,  683  BROADWAY. 
1853. 


CONTENTS. 


REPLY  TO  THE  BISHOP  OF  EXETER. 


PAGE 

Preliminary  remarks   5,  6 

Bishop  of  Exeter's  doctrine   6,  7 

Archbishop  of  Canterbury's  doctrine   7,  8 

On  the  Nineteenth  Article   8,  9 

On  the  Twenty-third  Article  (containing  citations  from  Bp.  Pearson, 
Bp.  Burnet,  Foreign  Prot.  Churches,  Rogers  on  the  Articles, 

Bp.  Tomline,  Bp.  Jewel,  and  Hooker)   9 — 14 

On  the  Twenty-sixth  Article   14,  15 

On  the  English  Ordinal   15—20 

On  a  minister's  supposed  right  to  minister  throughout  the  whole 

Church,  with  citation  from  Abp.  Whitgift  .  .  .  .  16,  17 
On  the  question  of  reordination,  with  extracts  from  Abps.  Bram- 

hall  and  Leighton,  Bingham,  and  the  Council  of  Nice  .  .  17 — 19 
The  Bishop's  argument  from  the  "  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man," 

and  the  "  Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition"  answered  .       .  20,  21 

Vindication  of  my  former  reference  to  these  Works        .       .       .  21 — 23 
Vindication  of  my  former  reference  to  the  Scholastic  divines,  show- 
ing the  Bishop's  attack  to  be  grounded  upon  a  want  of  know- 
ledge on  the  point  in  question,  with  extracts  from  Morinus  and 

Dean  Field  on  the  whole  subject   22 — 30 

The  view  quoted  from  them  supported  by  the  Canons  of  Ecbright 

and  Elfric,  and  the  fourth  Council  of  Carthage         .       .       .  30,  31 
Reply  to  the  Bishop's  remarks  respecting  the  divines  of  the  reign 
of  Edward  VI.,  with  reference  to  the  views  of  Ridley,  Philpot, 

Hooper,  Cox,  and  Aylmer   31 

Reply  to  the  Bishop's  remarks  respecting  the  divines  in  the  reign  of 

Elizabeth,  particularly  Hooker  and  Bp.  Bilson        .       .       .  32 — 33 

Reply  to  the  Bishop's  quotations  from  Bps.  Sanderson  and  Pearson  33 — 37 
Reply  to  exceptions  taken  to  my  former  testimonies,  particularly 

that  of  Bp.  Cosin   37,  38 

The  Bishop's  mistake  in  his  mode  of  arguing         ....  39 

Reply  to  the  Bishop's  remarks  on  the  55th  Canon    ....  39 — 42 

Burnet's  account  of  the  consecration  of  the  Scotch  Bishops  in  1661  42 

Reply  to  various  objections   42,  43 


iv 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Recapitulation  of  former  testimonies  from  divines  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth's reign,  namely:  Bp.  Alley,  Bp.  Pilkington,  Dr.  Whitaker, 
Bp.  Jewel,  Abp.  Whitgift,  Hooker,  Saravia,  Bp.  Bridges,  Bp. 
Cooper,  Dr.  Cosin  43,  44 

Correspondence  of  our  early  divines  with  the  Foreign  Protestant 

Ministers  45 

Cases  of  Scotch  and  Foreign  Protestant  Ministers  allowed  to  minis- 
ter in  our  Church  without  any  fresh  ordination       .       .       .    45,  46 

Any  difficulty  in  this  arose,  not  from  the  ecclesiastical  but  the 

statute  law,  proved  from  Bp.  Hall   46 

Abp.  Laud  probably  the  first  publicly  to  maintain  that  there  could 

be  no  true  Church  without  bishops   47 

Extract  from  Mr.  Hallam   47 

Reference  to  testimonies  already  given  in  former  Tract  from  Bp. 
Andrews  and  Abp.  Bramhall ;  also  from  Abps.  Bancroft,  Usher, 
Sancroft,  Wake,  Seeker,  and  Howley,  Bps.  Hall,  Davenant, 
Morton,  George,  Downham,  Cosin  and  Tomline,  Lord  Bacon, 
Deans  Field  and  Sherlock,  Archd.  Mason,  Drs.  Crakanthorpe, 
Willet,  and  Claget  48 

Additional  testimonies  from  Bp.  Hall,  Dr.  Crakanthorpe,  Dr.  J. 
White,  Bp.  F.  White,  Dr.  J.  Forbes,  Bingham,  Abp.  Sharp, 
Abp.  Tenison,  and  Dr.  John  Scott  48 — 51 

General  remarks  on  the  remaining  portion  of  the  Bishop's  "  Letter"    51 — 53 

Dr.  PhiUpotts'  rebuke  of  Mr.  Canning  for  speaking  slightingly  of 

Calvinists  53 

Reply  to  the  extraordinary  comments  of  the  Bishop  upon  the  Ordi- 
nation Service  of  the  French  Reformed  Church,  showing  that 
his  Lordship  has  effectually  invalidated  his  own  Orders  and  those 
of  probably  the  whole  Church,  with  extracts  from  Morinus,  Theo- 
doret,  Jerome,  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  and  the  Ordination 
Services  of  the  Greek  Church  53 — 58 

The  Bishop's  account  of  the  French  Service  rectified      .       .       .58,  59 

Reply  to  the  Bishop's  remarks  on  the  11th  Canon  of  the  French  Re- 
formed Church,  in  which  the  question  of  the  indelibility  of  Holy 
Orders  is  considered,  and  answered  from  Bingham  .       .       .    59 — 61 

Concluding  remarks  on  the  importance  of  united  action  among 
orthodox  Protestants  in  opposition  to  the  efforts  of  Popery  and 
Infidelity  ;  with  observations  on  some  statements  of  the  Bishop 
of  Oxford's  recent  Charge  61 — 64 


REPLY  TO  THE  BISHOP  OF  EXETER. 

#C.  $C.  cj-C. 


Of  the  many  grievous  errors  which  have  been  lately  put  forth 
in  our  Church  under  the  name  of  genuine  Church  principles  and 
Anglo-Catholic  doctrine,  there  is  not  one,  perhaps,  more  entirely 
opposed  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  and  the  real  doctrine  of  our 
Church,  than  that  the  only  legitimate  and  promised  channel 
through  which  the  grace  of  God  comes  to  mankind,  is  a  ministry 
deriving  its  Orders  from  an  Apostolically-descended  Episcopate. 
This  doctrine  is  the  rfpwro*  4fiSos,  the  primary  false  principle,  that 
is  at  the  root  of  the  present  controversy  among  us  on  the  question 
of  Foreign  Ordinations.  How  it  is  possible  for  ministers  of  our 
Church,  in  the  face  of  all  the  testimonies  that  history  sets  before 
us  of  the  close  communion  maintained  by  our  early  Reformers 
with  the  Protestant  Continental  Churches,  to  maintain  such  a  view 
as  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand. But  recent  experience  seems  to  show,  that  there  are  no 
bounds  to  the  Romanizing  doctrines  which  some  among  us  can  see 
clearly  set  forth  in  our  Protestant  Formularies. 

To  the  Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  certain  others  among  us,  it  is 
manifest  as  the  sun  at  noonday,  that  the  Orders  of  those  who  were 
recognized  by  our  Reformers  as  esteemed  fellow-ministers  of 
Christ,  and  most  dear  colleagues  in  the  Christian  ministry,  are 
pronounced  by  the  Formularies  drawn  up  by  those  very  Reformers 
to  be  altogether  invalid  and  null.  But  then,  it  must  not  be  for- 
gotten by  the  reader,  that  the  same  great  authority  has  found  his 
own  doctrine  of  universal  regeneration  in  baptism  in  the  Calvinistic 
Confessions  of  the  Foreign  Protestant  Churches ;  and  has  even, 
unconsciously,  quoted  the  words  of  Calvin  himself  as  bearing 
indubitable  testimony  to  the  truth  of  his  view. 

Whatever,  therefore,  be  the  amount  of  his  Lordship's  learning 
— a  question  into  which  I  will  not  enter — it  is  clear  that  he  has  a 
principle  of  interpretation  ready  upon  all  occasions,  by  which  the 
writings  of  any  individuals  may  be  shown  most  manifestly  to  set 
forth  the  doctrine  he  wishes  to  defend  ;  even  to  the  extent  of 
making  Calvin  himself  a  maintainer  of  the  opus  operatum  efficacy 
of  the  Sacraments,  and  proving  those  who  fraternized  with  Non- 
Episcopalian  churches  and  ministers,  and  considered  them  the  very 
choicest  portions  of  Christ's  Church,  and  his  favored  ambassadors 
to  a  fallen  world,  to  be  men  who,  in  the  Formularies  they  drew 
up,  formally  denounced  those  churches  and  ministers  as  uncatholic 


6 


communities  and  mere  pretenders  to  powers  which  they  did  not 
possess. 

We  may  reasonably  presume  to  doubt,  however,  whether  this 
principle  of  interpretation  will  be  as  satisfactory  to  impartial  in- 
quirers as  it  seems  to  be  to  the  Bishop  of  Exeter.  But  as  his 
Lordship  has  now  publicly  come  forward  with  an  elaborate  defence 
of  his  views  in  this  matter,  for  the  purpose  of  again  arraigning  his 
Metropolitan  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion,  for  false  doctrine  and 
teaching  opposed  to  that  of  his  Church,*  I  venture  to  offer  to  the 
public  the  following  remarks  upon  his  statements.  And  I  may 
the  rather  be  permitted  to  do  this,  as,  in  the  course  of  his  pam- 
phlet, he  has,  in  a  way  with  which  we  are  all  now  painfully 
familiar,  directly  charged  me  with  misrepresentation  in  my  citation 
of  certain  authorities  on  this  subject. 

His  Lordship's  Letter  has  been  called  forth,  he  tells  us,  by  the 
reply  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  an  Address  to  him  from 
certain  of  the  Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of  Exeter,  in  which  they 
desired  "  earnestly  to  record  their  conviction,  in  agreement  with 
the  judgment  of  our  Church,  consentient  with  that  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  that  they  only  can  be  deemed  validly  ordained  who  have 
received  'the  laying  on  of  hands  by  those  to  whom  the  Apostolic 
succession  has  descended.'  "  In  the  reply  of  the  Archbishop  to 
this  very  modest  production,  in  which  a  few  presbyters  take  upon 
themselves  to  lay  down  the  law  to  the  Primate  of  their  Church, 
and  to  pronounce  ex  cathedrd  what  is  "  the  judgment  of  our 
Church,"  and  "that  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  his  Grace  took  the 
opportunity  of  "  protesting  against  the  unwarranted  assumption 
which  it  contained."  Upon  which  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  thus 
comments  :  "  Believing,  as  I  do,  that  this  judgment  of  220  of  my 
clergy  u<as  substantially  right,  and  apprehending  that  the  censure 
passed  upon  it  by  the  Archbishop,  if  it  remain  unnoticed,  may 
lead  to  extensive  and  pernicious  error,  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  avow 
this  my  belief ;"  and  he  proceeds  to  fulfil  "  the  duty  of  stating 
plainly  and  explicitly  the  grounds  on  which  he  rests  it ;"  and  he 
adds  :  "  These  grounds  will  in  the  present  instance  be  limited  to 
the  authoritative  teaching  of  our  own  Church,  not  diverging  from 
it  in  any  way,  except  to  illustrate  that  teaching  :  for  the  question 
is,  whether  it  be  the  judgment  of  our  Church,  that  they  only  are 
truly  ordained  to  the  Christian  ministry  who  have  received  Holy 
Orders  from  those  to  ivhom  the  poiocr  of  conferring  them  has 
descended  in  succession  from  the  Apostles."  (Pp.  12,  13.) 

Such  is  the  position  which  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  has  taken  upon 
himself  to  defend  as  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  proved  to  be  so 
by  her  "authoritative  teaching."  The  reader  will  observe  that 
the  question  to  be  discussed  is  not  as  to  the  regularity  of  Non- 
Episcopal  Orders,  but  as  to  their  validity  ;  that  is,  whether  persons 

*  In  a  letter  to  the  Archdeacon  of  Totnes,  in  answer  to  an  Address  from  the  Clergy 
of  that  Archdeaconry  on  the  Necessity  of  Episcopal  Ordination.  By  Henry,  Lord  Bishop 
of  Exeter.    Murray:  8vo.  pp.  88. 


so  set  apart  have  any  right  to  perform  anywhere  the  duties  of 
the  ministerial  office,  or  to  expect  any  Divine  recognition  or  bless- 
ing in  their  performance  of  them.  And  if  such  Orders  are  not 
valid,  then  the  Churches  that  have  not  Bishops  "  descending  in 
succession  from  the  Apostles,"  have  none  among  them  recognized 
by  God  as  his  ministers  ;  they  are  entirely  destitute  of  any  persons 
holding  the  ministerial  office  ;  and,  of  course,  subject  to  all  the 
consequences  resulting  from  such  a  state  of  things. 

But,  as  I  am  anxious  that  the  Bishop's  views  should  be  fully 
stated  before  I  proceed  to  investigate  them,  I  will  give  him  the  en- 
tire benefit  of  a  species  of  saving  clause  which  he  has  thrown  in, 
in  one  place,  when  pointing  out  the  answer  which  he  thinks  ought 
to  have  been  given  by  the  Archbishop  to  Mr.  Gawthorn's  inquiry. 
He  intimates  that  his  Grace's  answer  ought  to  have  been,  that  "  he 
and  the  Church  of  England  do  hold  Ordination  by  Bishops  as 
necessary ;  but  yet,  that  we  are  not  forbidden  by  the  Church  to 
hope  that,  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  under  which  some 
of  these  foreigners  are  placed,  their  ministrations  are  not  void." 
(P.  7.) 

So  that  the  limitation  is  this  :  that,  while  our  Church  holds  that 
Non-Episcopal  Ordinations  are  altogether  invalid,  and  persons  so 
ordained  no  ministers  at  all,  yet  if  a  member  of  it  should  venture 
to  express  a  "  hope,"  that  the  ministrations  of  "  some"  such,  under 
some  peculiar  circumstances,  "are  not  void,"  our  Church  has  not 
directed  that  he  should  be  punished  for  it.  To  call  them  ministers 
would  indeed  be  a  grave  offence ;  but  our  Church  has  not  (the 
Bishop  thinks)  told  her  clergy  :  You  shall  not  indulge  a  hope  that 
the  ministrations  of  any  such  persons  can  be  of  any  use.  Our 
Church  is  charitable  enough  not  to  anathematize  those  who  indulge 
such  a  hope.  Such  is  the  limitation  with  which  the  Bishop's  posi- 
tion is  to  be  connected.  Will  the  reader  expect  me  to  take  much 
farther  notice  of  it? 

The  judgment  of  the  Archbishop,  which  it  may  be  well  also  to 
state  before  I  proceed  farther,  is,  that  our  Church  does  not  "  deny 
the  validity  of  the  Orders"  of  the  Pastors  of  the  Foreign  Protest- 
ant Churches  "  solely  on  account  of  their  wanting  the  imposition 
of  Episcopal  hands,"  (Letter  to  Gawthorn ;)  while  he  at  the  same 
time  maintains,  "  that  Episcopal  government,  and  therefore  that 
Episcopal  Ordination,  is  most  agreeable  to  Scripture,  most  in 
accordance  with  primitive  practice,  and  is  in  itself  the  '  more  ex- 
cellent way.'  "  (Letter  to  Palmer.) 

Which  of  these  two  views  is  most  consistent  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  England,  we  are  now  to  inquire. 

The  Bishop  commences  his  argument  with  an  appeal  to  the 
Formularies  of  our  Church,  particularly  those  parts  which  had 
been  referred  to  by  the  Archbishop  as  expressing  doctrine  with 
which  his  views  were  "in  exact  accordance;"  namely,  the  19th 
and  23d  Articles,  and  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal ;  and  out  of 
these  he  constructs,  by  a  long  process  of  argumentation  and  infer- 


8 


ential  reasoning,  aided  by  divers  additions  ah  extra,  a  system  of 
church  government  suited  to  his  views.  I  must  endeavor  to  follow 
him  in  the  mazes  of  the  labyrinth  he  has  constructed,  and  through 
whose  devious  and  winding  paths  he  has  reached  his  conclusions. 
His  Lordship's  mode  of  argumentation  on  such  occasions  strongly 
reminds  one  of  the  ingenious  method  by  which  the  cuttle-fish  is 
accustomed  to  elude  the  grasp  of  its  pursuers  ;  namely,  by  pouring 
forth  an  inky  fluid  which  so  darkens  the  waters  through  which  it 
takes  its  course,  that  their  powers  of  vision  are  completely  unequal 
to  the  task  of  tracking  its  path.  And  I  doubt  much,  whether  our 
venerable  Reformers  would  be  able  to  recognize  their  own  Formu- 
laries, if  presented  to  them  in  the  state  in  which  they  reappear 
after  having  been  subjected  to  the  action  of  that  potent  fluid. 

The  10th  Article  is  "  Of  the  Church,"  and  stands  thus  :  "The 
visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in 
which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  Sacraments  be 
duly  ministered  according  to  God's  ordinance,  in  all  things  that 
of  necessity  be  requisite  to  the  same." 

From  this  his  Lordship  deduces  three  positions :  First,  that  in 
any  body  professing  to  be  a  Church  of  Christ,  "  the  pure  word  of 
God"  is  to  be  preached;  a  deduction  which  I  shall  not  dispute. 
Secondly,  it  must  be  "preached  ;"  "that  is,"  says  his  Lordship, 
"  publicly  set  forth  for  the  instruction  of  the  people  by  persons 
duly  empowered,  or  sent,  for  that  purpose  ;  for  we  know  from  St. 
Paul  that  the  word  cannot  be  'preached' — that  is,  not  merely 
recited  or  taught,  but  proclaimed  with  assurance  and  autJiority — 
except  by  those  who  are  duly  '  sent,'  authorized  by  Him  whose 
word  they  proclaim,  *>;pvxfs — men  unto  whom  God  '  hath  com- 
mitted the  word  of  reconciliation.'  "  (P.  14.) 

Now  I  beg  to  ask,  where  does  his  Lordship  find  all  this  in  the 
Article?  The  Article  merely  uses  the  word  "preached."  Does 
his  Lordship  really  suppose  that  any  one  in  search  of  truth  will 
allow  him  to  raise  out  of  this  single  word  his  whole  doctrine  of 
the  sort  of  commission  necessary  to  qualify  a  man  for  preaching 
the  Gospel  ?  Has  he  forgotten  that  even  laymen  were  sometimes 
allowed  to  preach  in  the  early  Church,  and  that  in  the  presence 
of  a  bishop  ?  Or,  still  more,  has  he  forgotten  that  "  they  which 
were  scattered  abroad,  upon  the  persecution  that  arose  about 
Stephen,  travelled  as  far  as  Phenice,  and  Cyprus,  and  Antioch, 

preaching  the  word,  &c  And  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  with 

them,  and  a  great  number  believed  and  turned  unto  the  Lord  ?" 
(Acts  xi.  19-21.)  Or  (to  mention  no  more)  has  he  forgotten 
Apollos,  who,  when  "knowing  only  the  baptism  of  John,"  and 
therefore  certainly  not  ordained  by  any  apostle  or  Christian 
bishop,  "  spake  and  taught  diligently  the  things  of  the  Lord," 
whicli  I  suppose  amounts  to  preaching ;  and  after  receiving  farther 
instruction  from  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  "  helped  them  much  which 
had  believed  through  grace ;  for  he  mightily  convinced  the  Jews, 
and  that  publicly,  showing  by  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  was 


9 


Christ?"  (Acts  xviii.  24,  &c.)  All  these,  it  seems,  knew  nothing 
of  the  Bishop  of  Exeter's  doctrine,  that  nobody  might,  or  even 
could,  "  preach,"  but  one  specially  ordained  and  publicly  set  apart 
by  Divine  commission  for  the  purpose. 

Of  course  I  am  not  here  touching  the  question  of  the  necessity 
of  an  inward  Divine  call  and  qualification  for  being  am  ambassador 
of  Christ,  or  of  what  Apostolical  practice  teaches  us  to  be  proper 
for  the  due  appointment  of  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel  in  a  regularly 
constituted  Church.  All  I  wish  now  to  point  attention  to  is  the 
absurdity  (for  I  can  use  no  milder  term)  of  attempting  to  raise 
a  whole  system  of  church  government  out  of  the  single  word 
"  preach." 

His  Lordship's  third  deduction  is  that,  as  the  Article  requires, 
that  in  a  Church  "  the  Sacraments  be  duly  ministered  in  all 
those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same,"  and  the 
25th  Article  says,  that  sacraments  are  "  effectual  signs  of  grace, 
&c,  by  which  God  doth  work  invisibly  in  us,"  &c. ;  and  a  Homily 
says,  that  "in  them  God  embraceth  us,"  &c. ;  "manifestly,  there- 
fore, among  '  those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the 
duly  ministering  the  same'  must  be  authority  from  God,  given  to 
those  who  minister  them;"  and  it  is  added,  that  "our  Church 
has  not  left  the  point  to  be  deduced  by  our  sense  of  what  is  right: 
it  is  expressly  declared  in  the  20th  Article  that  they  who  minister 
the  Sacraments  1  do  not  the  same  in  their  own  name,  but  in 
Christ's,  and  do  minister  by  his  commission  and  authority ;"  and 
hence  the  consequence  is  deduced,  that  the  Sacraments  can  only 
be  "  duly  ministered"  "  by  those  who  have  commission  and 
authority  from  God  given  to  them  for  that  purpose;"  in  other 
words,  individuals  divinely  commissioned  "  for  that  purpose." 
Now,  one  single  consideration  annihilates  the  whole  of  this  argu- 
mentation ;  for  if  it  were  correct,  lay-baptism  would  be  wholly 
invalid,  which  the  Bishop  well  knows  is  not  the  doctrine  of  our 
Church  ;  and  therefore  his  third  deduction  is  as  groundless  as  his 
second.  The  question  whether  non-episcopally  ordained  ministers 
may  not  be  said  to  minister  by  Christ's  commission  and  authority, 
ie  one  that  will  more  properly  come  under  consideration  in  review- 
ing the  meaning  of  the  28d  Article ;  to  which  the  Bishop  next 
directs  our  attention. 

This  Article  is  entitled,  "Of  ministering  in  the  Congregation," 
and  runs  thus:  "It  is  not  lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him 
the  office  of  public  preaching  or  ministering  the  Sacraments  in  the 
congregation,  before  he  be  lawfully  called  and  sent  to  execute  the 
same.  And  those  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  sent, 
which  be  chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by  men  who  have  public 
authority  given  unto  them  in  the  congregation  to  call  and  send 
ministers  into  the  Lord's  vineyard." 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  any  one  can  read  this  Article, 
and  not  see  how  carefully  it  is  worded  so  as  not  to  exclude  from 
"lawful  calling"  the  ministers  of  the  Foreign  Protestant  Churches. 


As  Professor  Hey  says,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Articles,  the 
expression  "who  have  public  authority  given  unto  them  in  the 
congregation,"  "seems  to  leave  the  manner  of  giving  the  power  of 
ordaining  quite  free ;  it  seems  as  if  any  religious  society  might, 
consistently  with  this  Article,  appoint  officers,  with  power  of  Or- 
dination, by  election,  representation,  or  lot ;  as  if,  therefore,  the 
right  to  ordain  did  not  depend  upon  any  uninterrupted  succession.'" 
{Led.  in  Div.  vol.  iv.  p.  166.)  And  when  we  recollect  the  nature 
of  the  intercourse  and  communion  that  took  place  between  our 
Reformers  and  those  Churches  and  their  ministers,  both  at  the 
time  when  these  Articles  were  first  drawn  up,  in  the  reign  of  Ed- 
ward VI.,  and  at  their  re-establishment  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth, 
there  is  but  one  way  of  accounting  for  a  long  argumentation,  an 
effusion  of  ink  covering  eighteen  pages,  to  prove  that  by  "  men 
to  whom  public  authority  is  given,"  &c,  the  Article  "must  mean 
Bishops" (I)  and  that  "our  Church  holds  that  the  power  of  Ordina- 
tion is  in  Bishops  only."  (! !)  (P.  33.)  Painful  as  the  task  is  of 
taking  to  pieces  such  a  web  of  sophistry,  such  a  tissue  of  false 
reasoning  and  perversion  of  plain  statements,  the  position  of  the 
writer  makes  it  necessary  to  guard  the  public  mind  against  such  a 
representation  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Church. 

His  Lordship  commences  by  observing,  that  by  the  Article  it  is 
"  not  lawful"  to  "  execute  the  ministry  in  the  Church"  without  "  a 
lawful  call  and  mission."  His  Lordship  is  quite  aware,  as  he 
afterwards  informs  us,  that  this  is  held  by  his  opponents  as  much 
as  by  himself  (p.  20),  and  therefore  it  might  have  been  supposed 
that  he  would  at  once  have  passed  on  to  something  relevant  to  the 
question  in  hand.  But  it  appears,  that  by  some  obliquity  of  vis- 
ion, of  a  very  unenviable  kind,  he  saw  in  it  an  opportunity  of  fling- 
ing against  the  Primate  a  charge  of  fraternizing  with  Socinians  in 
the  matter.  He  is  "aware"  that  "Hammond  had  to  defend  the 
Apostle's  precept"  as  to  "mission"  being  "requisite  for  teaching 
in  the  Church  ;"  and  "  against  whom  ?" — "  against  Volkelius  and 
other  disciples  of  Socinus,  whom  he  asserts  'to  be  certainly  the  first 
that  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity  have  in  this  controversy 
appeared  against  us.'  "  To  which  his  Lordship  thinks  himself 
justified  in  appending  the  following  remark :  "  This  is  a  sad  pedi- 
gree ;  and  it  behooves  those  who  are  unconsciously  using  the  words 
and  arguments  of  Socinus  and  his  followers,  to  ponder  their 
founder's  purpose  in  using  them — which  was  no  other  than  to  as- 
sail the  faith,  by  disparaging  the  Divine  mission  of  its  heralds  and 
guardians."  (P.  17.) 

Hoping,  I  suppose,  that  the  reader  would  be  so  mystified  by  his 
statements  as  to  identify  all  "mission"  with  that  which  the 
Bishop  considers  proper  "mission;"  and  that  he  would  overlook 
the  fact  that  the  Bishop's  own  quotation  from  Hammond  con- 
demns him — for  its  terms  virtually  except  the  Foreign  Protestant 
Churches  from  the  charge  of  not  thinking  any  mission  requisite — 
he  hurls  against  the  Primate  a  reproach,  which  his  own  statements 


11 

prove  to  be  groundless.  Considering  the  quarter  from  which  it 
comes,  I  content  myself  with  thus  pointing  it  out. 

Into  his  Lordship's  theological  lucubrations,  occupying  the  next 
two  pages,  I  shall  not  enter.  What  we  are  inquiring  about  is  the 
doctrine  laid  down  in  the  Article.  But  he  concludes  thus  :  "  But 
is  all  mission  now  unnecessary  ?  Mission  from  God  himself?  The 
Catholic  Church  hath  from  the  beginning  held  the  contrary  ;  and 
our  own  Church,  as  a  faithful  part  of  it,  has  in  the  23d  Article 
proclaimed  the  same  truth — the  necessity  of  lawful  mission  gene- 
rally in  the  former  of  its  two  propositions — in  the  latter,  the  ne- 
cessity that  this  mission  be  mediately  from  God,  transmitted 

BY  SUCCESSION  FROM  THOSE  WHO,  AT  THE  FIRST,  RECEIVED  THE 
POWER  OF  THUS  GIVING  IT  IMMEDIATELY  FROM  OUR  LORD  HIM- 
SELF." (Pp.  19,  20.)  Such  is  the  doctrine  which  his  Lordship  has 
the  courage  to  assert  is  laid  down  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Article  ! 
He  admits,  indeed,  that  it  is  "  not  so  plainly  expressed ;"  and  as 
the  Primate  has  called  it  an  "unwarranted  assumption,"  he  pro- 
ceeds "  to  defend  it  publicly  in  the  face  of  the  Church." 

His  Lordship  says :  "  There  are  three  several  members  of  the 
proposition  which  we  are  considering :  I.  That  lawful  mission  to 
the  Christian  ministry  must  be  from  Cod  by  an  outward  call.  II. 
That  we  must  not  look  for  any  outward  call  from  God  except 
mediately  through  men.  III.  That  it  must  be  given  through  men 
who  have  themselves  received  the  power  of  transmitting  it,  pub- 
licly given  to  them  by  those  who  have  themselves  publicly  received 
the  power  of  giving  that  power  from  others  similarly  empowered  ; 
in  other  words,  in  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  Apostles  them- 
selves."   (P.  20.) 

Now  here  it  is  obvious,  that  his  Lordship  has  drawn  from  the 
Article  propositions  not  contained  in  it.  The  Article  does  not 
touch  the  question  of  the  call  '■'■from  God"  but  only  that  of  the 
external  call  by  men.  To  assert,  therefore,  that  the  Article  says 
that  lawful  mission  must  be  "from  God  by  an  outward  call"  is  a 
direct  and  palpable  misrepresentation  of  it. 

And  the  Bishop's  own  authority,  Bishop  Pearson,  whom  he  so 
highly  extols  (p.  52) — and  not  without  reason — might  have  shown 
him,  and  in  the  very  passage  to  which  he  has  referred  us,  his  error 
in  introducing  these  words  into  the  Article.  For  Bishop  Pearson, 
treating  of  the  mode  of  Ordination  in  the  Church  of  England, 
says:  "Ordinaria  vocatio  fit  a  Deo  et  per  homines.  Quatenus  est 
a  Deo,  est  interna;  quatenus  est  per  homines,  est  externa." 
{Minor  Theol.  Wks.  i.  291,  292.) 

In  defence  of  the  third  proposition,  the  Bishop  argues  thus: 
That  when  the  Article  says  that  the  persons  through  whom  lawful 
mission  must  be  given,  are  "men  who  have  public  authority 
given  unto  them  in  the  congregation,"  it  clearly  means  that  this 
power  "  is  so  given  by  God, — publico  in  Ecclesia  ;  that  is,  in  some 
outward  manner  by  which  it  shall  be  publicly  known  in  the  Church 
to  be  given  ;"  the  Divine  Being  being  represented,  after  the  first 


12 


bestowal  of  the  power,  by  a  succession  of  representatives  of  those 
to  whom  the  power  was  first  given.  For,  says  the  Bishop,  "as 
these  [i.  e.,  modern  Bishops  who  give  power  of  mission]  must  in 
like  manner  have  received  their  power  of  mission  from  others,  who 
had  received  it  in  like  manner,  the  series  must  be  carried  back- 
wards, until,  as  we  before  said,  it  reaches  the  Apostles,  whom  our 
Lord  sent,  'as  the  Father  had  sent  Him,'  i.  e.,  with  power  to  send 
others."  (P.  22.) 

This  is  the  foundation  on  which  his  whole  argumentation  rests; 
and  it  is  clearly  derived  from  his  adding  words  to  the  Article  cal- 
culated to  carry  out  his  own  views.  The  Article  clearly  implies, 
that  there  is  power  in  a  Church  to  authorize  certain  of  its  mem- 
bers to  call  and  appoint  others  to  the  office  of  the  ministry,  which 
exactly  meets  the  case  of  the  Foreign  Protestant  Churches.  The 
words  "  authority  given  unto  them  by  God  in  the  Congregation," 
are  very  different  from  what  we  find  in  the  Article.  They  would 
imply,  that  the  Congregation,  or  Church,  had  no  voice  in  the 
matter,  and  could  not  authorize  any  of  their  body  to  do  any  act 
of  the  kind.  So  that  the  words  which  the  Bishop  has  thus  foisted 
into  the  Article  completely  change  the  character  of  its  doctrine. 
They  just  determine  what  the  Article  has  studiously  left  open, 
and  determine  it  in  opposition  to  the  known  sentiments  of  those 
who  drew  up  the  Article.  They  make  it  necessary  that  the  mis- 
sion should  be  given  by  some  individual  or  individuals  specially,  and 
individually,  and  publicly  commissioned  by  God  himself,  apart 
f  rom  the  Church,  to  bestow  it ;  while  the  terms  of  the  Article  imply 
that  God  has  left  sufficient  power  with  the  Church  to  act  in  such  a 
matter. 

The  Article  is  evidently  drawn  up  so  as  to  comprehend  the 
Foreign  Protestant  Churches.  It  does  not  pretend  to  define  ex- 
actly what  our  own  Church's  particular  mode  of  calling  and  sending 
ministers  is ;  but  it  states  the  limits  of  what  may  be  considered  a 
lawful  calling.  Most  just  and  pertinent  are  the  remarks  of  Bishop 
Burnet,  in  his  Exposition  of  this  Article  : — 

"  If,"  he  says,  "a  company  of  Christians  find  the  public  worship  where  they 
live  to  be  so  defiled  that  they  cannot  with  a  good  conscience  join  in  it,  and 
if  they  do  not  know  of  any  place  to  which  they  can  conveniently  go,  where 
they  may  worship  God  purely  and  in  a  regular  way;  if,  I  say,  such  a  Body, 
finding  some  that  have  been  ordained,  though  to  the  lower  functions,  should 
submit  itself  entirely  to  their  conduct;  or,  finding  none  of  those,  should  by  a 
common  consent  desire  some  of  their  own  number  to  minister  to  them  in  holy 
things,  and  should,  upon  that  beginning,  grow  up  to  a  regulated  constitution, 
though  we  are  very  sure  that  this  is  quite  out  of  all  rule,  and  could  not  be 
done  without  a  very  great  sin,  unless  the  necessity  were  great  and  apparent  ; 
yet,  if  the  necessity  is  real  and  not  feigned,  this  is  not  condemned  or  annulled 
by  the  Article;  for  when  this  grows  to  a  constitution,  and  when  it  was  begun 
by  the  consent  of  a  Body  who  are  supposed  to  have  an  authority  in  such  an 
extraordinary  case,  whatever  some  hotter  spirits  have  thought  of  this  since 
that  time,  yet  we  are  very  sure,  that  not  only  those  who  penned  the  Articles,  but 
the  both  of  this  Church  for  above  half  an  aye  after,  did,  notwithstanding  those 
irregularities,  acknowledge  the  Foreign  Churches  so  constituted  to  be  true 
Churches  as  to  all  the  essentials  of  a  Church,  though  they  had  been  at  first  irre- 
gularly formed,  and  continued  still  to  be  in  an  imperfect  state.    And  there- 


13 


FORE  THE  GENERAL  WORDS  IN  WHICH  THIS  PART  OP  THE  ARTICLE  IS  FRAMED, 
SEEM  TO  HAVE  BEEN  DESIGNED  ON  PURPOSE  NOT  TO  EXCLUDE  THEM." 

In  fact,  the  Article  requires  nothing  more  as  necessary  for  law- 
ful calling  than  what  is  required  in  the  Confessions  of  several  of 
the  Foreign  Protestant  Non-Episcopal  Churches;  as,  for  instance, 
the  Helvetic  (Art.  16),  Bohemian  (c.  9),  and  Belgic  (Art.  31). 
And  therefore  the  Bishop  might  just  as  well  attempt  to  fasten  his 
doctrine  upon  the  Confessions  of  these  Non-Episcopal  Churches  as 
upon  that  of  the  Church  of  England. 

I  have  already  pointed  out,  in  a  former  publication,*  that  the 
first  Exposition  of  the  Articles — that  by  Rogers,  Chaplain  to 
Archbishop  Bancroft,  which  was  published  in  1607,  as  "  perused 
and  by  the  lawful  authority  of  the  Church  of  England  allowed  to  be 
public,"  and  which  the  Archbishop  (a  High-Churchman)  ordered 
all  the  parishes  in  his  province  to  supply  themselves  with — inter- 
prets the  Article  in  this  way,  and  points  out  its  agreement  with 
the  Confessions  I  have  just  referred  to;  and  so  also  does  the  late 
High-Churchman,  Bishop  Tomline.f 

Indeed,  the  only  way  in  which  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  can  force 
his  doctrine  out  of  the  Article,  is  by  garbling  it  by  the  addition  of 
words  which  totally  alter  its  obvious  meaning.  And  presuming, 
I  suppose,  upon  the  ignorance  of  his  readers,  he  ventures  even  to 
quote,  in  support  of  his  view  of  it,  the  Apology  of  Bishop  Jewel, 
which  he  correctly  tells  us  "had  the  grateful  sanction  of  that  very 
Synod  in  which  our  present  Articles  were  compiled."  Now,  not  to 
mention  Bishop  Jewel's  notorious  recognition  of  certain  of  the 
Foreign  Protestant  Churches  and  their  ministers,  which  alone 
would  render  such  a  reference  deserving  of  unqualified  censure, 
the  fact  is,  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  English  Church 
(including  this  question  of  Orders),  inserted  by  Bishop  Jewel  in 
his  Apology,  was  placed  by  the  Foreign  Reformers  in  the  Har- 
mony of  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  published  at 
Geneva,  in  1581,  asone  with  which  all  the  rest  were  in  agreement. 

And  so  completely  opposed  is  Hooker  to  the  Bishop's  interpre- 
tation of  the  Article,  that  he  distinctly  intimates  that  there  is  no 
"heavenly  law"  whereby  it  may  appear,  "that  the  Lord  himself 
hath  appointed  presbyters  forever  to  be  under  the  regiment  of 
Bishops,"  and  that  "their  authoi-ity"  is  "a  sword  which  the  Church 
hath  power  to  take  from  them,"  (Eccl.  Pol.  vii.  5  ;)  and  expressly 
says  that  "the  whole  Church  visible"  is  "  the  true  original  subject 
of  all  power  ;"  and  that  though  11  it  hath  not  ordinarily  allowed 
any  other  than  Bishops  alone  to  ordain,  howbeit,  as  the  ordinary 
course  is  ordinarily  in  all  things  to  be  observed,  so  it  may  be,  in 
some  cases,  not  unnecessary  that  we  decline  from  the  ordinary 
ways;"  and  that  "there  may  be  sometimes  very  just  and 
sufficient  reason  to  allow  Ordination  made  without  a  Bishop." 
(Ib.  14). 

*  The  Doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England  on  Non-Episcopal  Ordinations, 
t  Expos,  of  Articles,  ed.  1799,  p.  376. 


14 


The  Bishop's  remarks  upon  Bishop  Burnet's  Commentary  on  the 
Articles,  which  he  finds  most  inconveniently  in  his  way,  I  leave 
to  their  fate. 

The  quotation  from  a  posthumous  work  of  Bishop  Beveridge, 
-which  it  does  not  appear  that  he  left  for  publication,  and  which 
was  said  by  some,  at  the  time  of  its  first  appearance,  to  have  been 
a  juvenile  work  of  its  author,  cannot  override  the  plain  language  of 
the  Article.  There  is  not  one  word  in  the  Article  that  even 
implies  the  necessity  of  Ordination  by  an  apostolically  descended 
Episcopate. 

Before  I  pass  on,  I  must  notice  a  very  remarkable  piece  of  ver- 
bal criticism  on  the  part  of  his  Lordship.  No  one,  I  suppose,  can 
have  perused  the  various  recent  publications  that  have  issued  from 
his  Lordship's  pen,  without  observing  the  happy  ingenuity  with 
which  he  occasionally  mystifies  his  admiring  readers,  by  the  pro- 
found discrimination  with  which  he  brings  to  light  some  nice  turns 
of  expression  in  the  documents  he  is  quoting,  proving  beyond  con- 
tradiction how  exactly  they  fall  in  with  his  doctrine.  So  remark- 
able an  illustration  of  this  occurs  here,  that  I  must  beg  permission 
to  present  it  to  the  reader:  "This,  then,"  says  the  Bishop,  "I 
scruple  not  to  accept,  and  to  commend  to  others,  as  a  sound  and 
irrefragable  statement  of  the  real  import  of  the  Article  ;  inviting, 
in  confirmation  of  it,  attention  to  the  reverential  tone  in  which  the 
Article  is  conceived:  '  Atque  illos  legitime  vocatos  existimare 
debemus.'  This  is  language  highly  becoming  those  who  recognize 
God  as  the  author  of  lawful  mission,  but  would  hardly  be  used  to 
designate  a  call  from  man.  In  that  case  we  should  rather  expect 
a  categorical  declaration  that  such  persons  are  called."  (P.  26.) 
So  that  if  I  was  to  say,  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  ought  to  consider 
such  and  such  persons  lawfully  called,  I  should  be  using  a  "  reve- 
rential tone"  in  the  matter,  which  would  show  that  I  recognized 
God,  and  not  man,  as  the  author  of  their  mission.  Alas!  my  poor 
brains  are  too  dull  for  such  transcendental  discrimination. 

His  Lordship  proceeds  to  cite  the  26th  Article  in  confirmation  of 
his  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  23d.  This  Article  says,  that  the 
ministers  of  the  Church  minister  "in  Christ's  name,"  and  "by  his 
commission  and  authority;"  from  which  it  is  argued:  "This recog- 
nition of  ministers  exercising  their  ministry  in  Christ's  name,  and 
by  his  commission,  negatives  all  merely  human  authority  in  their 
appointment."  (P.  27.)  But  this  does  not  touch  the  real  question 
at  issue ;  which,  in  fact,  his  Lordship,  throughout  his  argumenta- 
tion, from  whatever  cause,  altogether  ignores.  The  question  is, 
whether  the  power  of  giving  the  outward  call  to  men  to  preach  and 
administer  the  Sacraments,  and  of  conferring  that  power  upon 
others,  was  so  exclusively  given  by  Christ  to  the  Apostles, 
and  by  the  Apostles  to  the  Bishops  they  appointed,  that  none 
other  of  his  followers  but  those  having  apostolically  derived 
power  in  this  respect  can,  under  any  circumstances,  exercise  or 
confer  it.    Now  this  supposed  exclusive  gift  is  just  what  is  to  be 


15 


proved,  but  what  his  Lordship  throughout  his  argument  assumes. 
It  does  not  necessarily  follow,  that  a  mission  to  execute  the  minis- 
terial office  is  by  mere  human  authority,  because  it  is  not  given  by  a 
Bishop  deriving  his  authority  by  regular  succession  from  the 
Apostles.  And,  as  I  have  shown  before,  a  host  of  our  best  divines 
do  not  hold  it  to  be  so.*  Our  learned  Dean  Field,  in  his  standard 
work  Of  the  Church,  elaborately  defends  the  position,  that  pres- 
byters have,  so  far  as  the  capabilities  given  to  them  in  their  Ordi- 
nation extend,  power  equally  with  Bishops  to  do  all  things  neces- 
sary for  the  maintenance  of  God's  service,  "and  that  only  for 
order's  sake  and  the  preservation  of  peace,  there  is  a  limitation  of 
the  USE  and  exercise  of  the  same,"  confining  it  to  Bishops. f 
And,  therefore,  even  supposing  that  this  limitation  originated  with 
the  Apostles,  and  still  more  if  it  originated  with  the  subsequent 
Church,  as  Jerome  and  many  other  of  the  ancients  maintained, 
circumstances  might  fully  justify  its  being  laid  aside.  And,  more- 
over, it  must  be  recollected,  that  it  is  Christ's  own  act  in  calling 
any  one  by  his  Spirit,  and  qualifying  him  for  his  service,  that 
more  especially  constitutes  any  one  his  minister,  not  the  mere  out- 
ward commission  of  man,  which  insures  nothing  but  the  bare 
validity  of  his  ministerial  acts. 

But  the  23d  Article,  says  his  Lordship,  "  leaves  to  a  subsequent 
Article,  the  36th,  to  tell  us  who  they  are  to  whom  this  power  is 
given;"  the  36th  Article  sanctioning  the  Ordinal.  (P.  27.)  And 
here  we  find  one  of  those  specimens  of  unfairness,  the  constant 
occurrence  of  which,  in  his  Lordship's  latter  publications,  deprives 
one  of  all  confidence  in  his  statements.  He  quotes  the  Preface  to 
the  Ordinal  as  it  was  altered  at  the  Keview  in  1661,  as  if  it  was 
thus  put  forth  by  the  framers  of  the  Articles,  giving  not  the 
slightest  intimation  to  the  reader  of  there  being  any  difference 
between  the  two,  though  the  difference  is  of  importance  in  the 
point  under  discussion,  and  was  fully  noticed  in  a  Tract  then  lying 
under  his  Lordship's  eyes,  and  criticized  by  him  a  few  pages  far- 
ther on  !  Nay,  at  a  subsequent  part  of  his  argument  (p.  63),  it 
became  convenient  to  notice  this  fact,  and  consequently  there  we 
find  it.  It  does  not,  indeed,  of  course,  make  the  sense  of  the  23d 
Article  different  from  what  it  was  before  ;  but  it  commits  our  Ee- 
formers  to  a  higher  view  of  the  importance  of  Episcopal  Ordina- 
tion than  they  in  reality  took. 

The  Bishop  gives  the  passage  thus  :  "  To  the  intent  that  these 
Orders  should  be  continued  and  reverently  used  and  esteemed  in 
the  Church  of  England,"  "  no  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to 
be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon  in  the  Church  of  England, 
or  suffered  to  execute  any  of  the  said  functions,  except  he  be  called, 
tried,  examined,  and  admitted  thereunto,  according  to  the  form 
hereafter  following,  or  hath  formerly  received  Episcopal  consecra- 
tion or  ordination." 

*  See  Doctrine  of  Church  of  England  on  Non-Episcopal  Ordinations, 
t  See  the  whole  passage  below,  pp.  27-28. 


16 


And  in  his  Lordship's  observations  upon  this  passage,  he  lays 
the  greatest  stress  upon  the  concluding  words,  "  or  hath  formerly 
received  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination."  Now  these  words, 
as  his  Lordship  well  knows,  were  not  inserted  till  the  revision  of 
the  Book  in  1661,  by  the  Laudian  divines,  who  then  had  the  upper 
hand.  He  knows  also,  upon  the  testimony  of  the  High  Church- 
man Bishop  Cosin,  and  others,*  lying  before  him  when  he  wrote, 
that,  in  the  previous  period  of  our  Church,  persons  having  only 
Presbyterian  Orders  were  admitted  to  minister  in  our  Church, 
and  that  it  was  the  general  opinion  of  the  Bishops  that  there  was 
nothing  to  prevent  this.  Hence,  not  only  was  there  evidence, 
that  our  Church  admitted  the  validity  of  the  Orders  of  the  Foreign 
Protestant  Churches,  so  far  as  those  churches  themselves  were  con- 
cerned, but  persons  so  ordained  were  allowed  to  minister  in  our 
own  Church.  And  the  insertion  of  those  words  in  1661,  requir- 
ing Episcopal  Ordination  for  those  who  minister  in  our  Church — 
obviously  with  a  view  to  the  Presbyterians,  who,  in  the  civil  war, 
had  usurped  the  places  of  the  Episcopalian  clergy — cannot  affect 
the  doctrine  of  our  Church  on  the  abstract  question,  whether  the 
Foreign  Protestant  Churches  are  destitute  of  any  validly  ordained 
pastors. 

The  direction  here  given,  as  it  stood  both  before  and  after  the 
Review  in  1661,  is  strictly  limited  to  what  is  required  "  in  the 
Church  of  England."  There  is  a  marked  abstinence  from  any 
statement  of  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  Orders  for  a  valid  minis- 
try, which  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  our  Reformers  would 
have  observed,  if  they  had  held  the  Bishop  of  Exeter's  notions. 
And  when  we  couple  this  with  their  known  conduct  towards  the 
Foreign  Protestant  Churches,  not  the  smallest  doubt  can  be  left 
upon  the  mind  of  any  reasonable  inquirer  after  the  truth  that  they 
did  not  hold  them. 

But  the  Bishop  supports  his  view  by  two  arguments.  The  first 
is  this.  He  says :  "  If  persons  from  Berlin  and  Geneva,  calling 
themselves  ministers  of  Christ's  Church,  are  really  such  ministers, 
it  would  be  a  direct  act  of  schism  for  our  Church  to  reject  their 
ministry  ;  for  all  who  are  Christ's  ministers  at  all,  are  his  minis- 
ters throughout  his  whole  Church."  (P.  30.)  But  what  a  mere 
cobweb  is  this !  Has  not  a  Church  a  right  to  say  to  those  minis- 
ters who  come  here  from  a  Church  under  a  different  form  of 
government,  "  We  have  laid  down  a  rule  which  we  consider  most 
in  accordance  with  Apostolical  usage,  requiring  a  certain  mode  of 
introduction  to  the  ministry  among  us,  and  we  think  it  inexpedient 
to  break  it  by  admitting  others  not  so  qualified?"  Does  it  follow 
from  this,  that  our  Church  holds  them  to  be  destitute  of  all  right 
to  exercise  the  ministerial  office  anywhere  ?  Where  does  his  Lord- 
ship derive  his  authority  for  denying  to  his  Church  such  a  pru- 
dential mode  of  action,  and  shutting  her  up  to  the  alternative  of 


*  See  «  Doctrine,  &c,"  pp.  29,  30. 


17 


either  admitting  to  hold  office  in  her  communion  any  minister  of 
a  Foreign  Church,  whatever  its  form  of  government  may  be,  or 
denying  that  such  a  one  has  any  right  to  exercise  the  ministerial 
office  to  any  body  of  Christians  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  The 
fact  is,  that  his  Lordship  has  in  this  point,  as  well  as  in  his  advo- 
cacy of  the  exclusive  admissibility  of  one  form  of  Ecclesiastical 
government,  been  following  in  the  steps  of  the  early  Puritans. 
His  own  words  are  almost  identical  with  those  of  the  notorious 
Puritan  Travers  to  Archbishop  Whitgift.  Travers,  to  show  that  he 
had  a  right  to  be  allowed  to  minister  in  the  Church  of  England, 
though  having  only  Presbyterian  Orders  (and  he  could  hardly  be 
said  to  have  any),  urged,  that  "  the  universal  and  perpetual  prac- 
tice of  all  Christendom,  in  all  places,  and  in  all  ages,  proveth  the 
ministers  lawfully  made  in  any  Church  of  sound  profession  in 
faith,  ought  to  be  acknowledged  such  in  any  other;"  he  means, 
so  as  to  be  allowed  to  minister  in  it.  To  which  Archbishop  Whit- 
gift (who,  as  we  know  from  his  writings,  admitted  the  VALIDITY  of 
the  Orders  of  the  Foreign  Protestant  Churches,  but  held  that  "  tlie 
laws  of  this  realm  require  that  such  as  are  to  be  allowed  as  minis- 
ters in  this  Church  of  England  should  be  ordered  by  a  Bishop, 
and  subscribe  to  the  Articles  before  him,")  replies  to  the  argument 
thus :  "  Excepting  always  such  Churches  as  allow  of  Presbytery, 
and  practise  it."  He  considered  that  in  such  a  case  an  Episcopal 
Church  might  fairly  object  to  one  not  ordained  as  she  required, 
acting  as  one  of  her  own  ministers.  But  he  did  not  deny  the 
validity  of  Presbyterian  Orders  in  the  abstract.  In  the  same 
paper  to  which  I  am  now  referring,  he  admits  that  Whittingham 
"was  ordained  minister  by  those  which  had  authority  in  the 
Church"  in  which  he  was  ordained,  though  he  held  such  Orders 
not  a  sufficient  qualification  for  ministering  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land.   (See  Strypes  Whitgift,  App.  bk.  8,  n.  30.) 

The  second  argument  is  this,  that  if  any  of  the  ministers  of 
Non-Episcopal  Churches  wish  to  be  ministers  of  the  Church  of 
England,  "they  must,  as  a  preliminary,  renounce  all  claim  at 
present  to  any  ministerial  character  whatsoever,"  and  "present 
themselves  as  lay  candidates  for  holy  orders  ;"  "and  yet  for  our 
Church  thus  to  insist  on  their  submitting  to  be  ordained  anew,  if 
they  already  have  Orders,  would  be,  not  merely  an  act  of  schism,  but 
a  manifest  desecration  of  Christ's  ordinance,  a  most  sinful  rejection 
of  his  commission."    (Pp.  30,  31.) 

High-sounding  words  these,  no  doubt,  and  very  characteristic 
of  their  author.  But  the  question  is,  What  truth  is  there  in  them  ? 
None  at  all.  There  is  no  such  "renunciation"  required.  And 
the  whole  notion  about  the  "  desecration  of  Christ's  ordinance" 
involved  in  such  a  step,  is  entirely  opposed  to  the  views  of  our 
best  divines  of  all  parties.  What  does  the  High  Churchman 
Archbishop  Bramhall  say  in  his  Letters  of  Orders,  when  ordaining 
one  who  had  previously  had  only  Scotch  Presbyterian  Orders: 
"  Non  annihilantes  priores  ordines  (si  quos  habuit),  nec  invalidi- 


IS 


tatem  eorundem  determinates,  multo  minus  omnes  ordines  sacros 
Ecclesiarum  Forinsecarum  condemnantes,  quos  proprio  Judici  re- 
HnquimuS,  sed  solummodo  supplentes  quicquid  prius  defuit  per 
canones  Eeclesiae  Anglicanse  requisition,  et  providentes  paci  Eccle- 
sise,  ut  schismatis  tollatur  occasio,  et  conscientiis  fidelium  satisfiat, 
nee  ulli  dubitent  de  ejus  ordinatione,  aut  actus  sous  presbyteriales 
tanquara  invalidos  aversentur."  (Works,  Oxf.  ed.  vol.  i.  p. 
xxxvii.) 

Let  his  Lordship's  friends  determine  which  is  the  best  authority, 
the  Bishop  of  Exeter  or  Archbishop  Bramhall. 

But,  as  this  is  an  important  point,  I  shall  add  some  farther 
testimonies. 

And,  first,  let  us  hear  the  opinion  of  Archbishop  Leighton,  one 
■whose  learning  as  well  as  piety  is  unquestionable.  When  conse- 
crated Bishop,  in  1661,  by  some  of  the  English  bishops,  he  was 
required  by  them  to  submit  to  be  first  ordained  Deacon  and  Priest, 
on  the  ground  partly  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  and  partly  that, 
though  it  might  be  reasonable  to  allow  Presbyterian  Orders  under 
some  circumstances,  yet  that  his  had  been  received  from  those  who 
were  in  a  state  of  schism,  and  had  without  reason  revolted  from  their 
bishops.*  And  Leighton's  view  on  the  subject  is  thus  stated  by 
his  intimate  friend  Bishop  Burnet :  "  Leighton  did  not  stand 
much  upon  it.  He  did  not  think  Orders  given  without  bishops 
were  null  and  void,  lie  thought  the  forms  of  government  were 
not  settled  by  such  positive  laws  as  were  unalterable  ;  but  only  by 
Apostolic  practices,  which,  as  he  thought,  authorized  Episcopacy 
as  the  best  form.  Yet  he  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  the  being 
of  a  Church.  But  he  thought  that  every  Church  might  make 
such  rules  of  Ordination  as  they  pleased,  and  that  they  might  reor- 
dain  all  that  came  to  them  from  any  other  Church  ;  and  that  the 
reordaining  a  priest  ordained  in  another  Church  imported  no  more 
but  that  they  received  him  into  Orders  according  to  their  rules,  and 
did  not  infer  the  annulling  the  Orders  he  had  formerly  received." 
(Hist,  of  Ids  Own  Times,  vol.  i.  p.  140.) 

The  testimony  of  Archbishop  Leighton,  therefore,  is  directly 
against  the  Bishop  on  all  the  points  of  the  case. 

But  a  still  more  important  testimony  perhaps  than  even  these  is 
that  of  the  learned  Bingham,  the  author  of  the  Antiquities  of  the 
Christian  Church.  He  says,  in  his  French  Church's  Apology 
for  the  Church  of  England : — 

Nor  do  I  see  what  can  be  urged  farther  in  this  case,  unless  it  be  the  busi- 
ness of  reordination,  which  some  reckon  so  great  a  charge  against  the  Act  of 
Uniformity ;  because  it  obliges  every  beneficiary  to  receive  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion, according  to  the  form  and  rites  of  the  Church  of  England.  But  tchat 
harm  there  is  in  this,  I  confess  I  never  yet  could  see;  and  I  am  sure  there  is 
nothing  in  it  contrary  to  the  principles  or  practice  of  Geneva,  nor  perhaps  of 
the  whole  French  Church.  For  at  Geneva  it  is  their  common  practice,  when- 
ever they  remove  a  minister  from  one  Church  to  another,  to  give  him  a  new 
and  solemn  ordination  by  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer  Xow,  if  it  be 


•  I  shall  revert  presently  to  their  view  on  this  point.  See  p.  42. 


19 


lawful,  by  the  rules  of  the  Church  of  Geneva,  for  a  minister  to  receive  a  new 
solemn  ordination,  when  he  is  translated  from  one  Church  to  another ;  why 
cannot  men  in  England  consent  to  receive  a  new  ordination,  when  the  law 
requires  it,  in  order  to  settle  themselves  regularly  in  any  Church  ?  especially 
when  it  is  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  union,  and  to  take  off  all  manner  of 
doubtfulness  and  scruples  from  the  people.  I  dispute  not  note,  whether  their 
former  ordinations  were  valid  [this  question,  we  see,  he  does  not  consider 
to  affect  the  point  to  bo  determined,  namely,  whether  they  could  properly 
submit  to  reordination]  ;  it  is  certain,  they  are  not  more  valid  than  those  of 
Geneva  ;  nor  can  they  themselves  think  them  more  valid  than  the  ministers 
of  Geneva  think  theirs  ;  wherefore,  if  it  be  lawful  at  Geneva  for  a  minister  to 
receive  a  new  ordination,  because  the  laws  require  it,  I  do  not  see  what  can 
make  it  unlawful  in  England  to  submit  to  the  same  thing,  in  compliance  with 
the  law,  when  men  have  no  other  regular  way  to  settle  themselves  in  any 
cure;  let  their  opinion  of  their  former  ordination  be  what  it  will,  wnicn  comes 
not  into  the  present  dispute.  For  even  supposing  their  former  ordination 
[i.  e.  the  Presbyterian  in  this  country]  to  be  valid,  I  show  they  may  submit  to 
a  new  ordination  without  sin;  and  if  the  will  be  peaceable,  they  ought  to  do  it, 
after  the  example  of  Geneva,  rather  than  set  up  separate  meetings  and  preach 
against  the  will  of  their  superiors,  to  the  disturbance  of  the  peace  of  the 
Church."  [Bingham's  Works,  vol.  ix.  ed.  1845,  pp.  29G,  297.) 

I  might  add  other  authorities,  hut  after  these  it  is  needless  to 
do  so. 

I  arn  as  well  aware  as  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  can  be  of  the  deci- 
sions of  the  early  Church  against  reordinations,  and,  in  the  state 
of  things  which  then  existed,  can  quite  enter  into  their  propriety. 
But  the  circumstances  of  the  Church  were  then  different;  and 
those  decisions  are  no  more  binding  upon  us  than  many  that  are 
totally  disregarded  by  all  parties.  And  after  all,  they  only  laid 
down  the  general  rule  ;  for  we  are  not  without  some  precedent 
for  such  reordinations  even  in  the  early  Church.  For  the  great 
Council  of  Nice  directed,  that  those  who  had  been  ordained  by 
Meletius,  after  he  had  been  deposed  by  his  Metropolitan,  were 
not  to  be  admitted  to  minister  in  the  Church  until  they  had  been 
qualified  to  do  so  by  a  "  more  sacred  Ordination,"  (nvstixatepq. 
zitpotoviq.  &(jio.iu6ivrai.)*  The  validity  of  the  Ordination  is  not  de- 
nied, as  it  could  hardly  be,  but  the  defects  of  its  irregularity  are 
supplied.  It  could  no  more  be  invalid  than  those  of  the  Donatists, 
which  we  know  from  Augustine  were  admitted,  in  those  that  came 
over  to  the  Church,  as  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  minister  in  the 
Church  without  any  fresh  Ordination. 

"  But,"  adds  his  Lordship,  "  we  have  not  yet  done  with  the 
Preface  to  the  Book  of  Consecration  and  Ordination.  In  truth,  its 
very  first  words,  duly  consiflered,  are  conclusive  of  the  whole  ques- 
tion :  '  It  is  evident  unto  all  men,  diligently  reading  Holy  Scrip- 
ture and  ancient  authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  have 
been  three  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church,  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons*'  Now,  were  these  orders  appointed  by  man  or  God  ? 
No  one  amongst  us  can  hesitate  what  answer  to  give — undoubtedly 
by  God."  And  then,  having  pointed  out  the  offices  and  powers 
which  our  Ordinal  attributes  to  each,  his  Lordship  seems  to  sup- 


*  Epist.  Synod,  ap.  Socrat.  lib.  i.  c.  9. 


20 


pose  that  his  work  is  done,  and  his  wished  for  conclusion  made 
good. 

'  Now  I  should  be  abusing  the  patience  of  the  reader  to  attempt 
any  elaborate  confutation  of  such  an  argument  as  this.  The 
veriest  tyro  in  these  matters  knows,  that  there  is  no  ground  what- 
ever to  attribute  the  existence  of  these  three  Orders  to  a  direct 
appointment  of  God.  The  utmost  that  can  be  said  is,  that  they 
were  appointed  by  the  Apostles,  who  were  divinely  inspired  to 
deliver  the  Gospel  message  to  mankind,  and  therefore,  so  far  as 
was  necessary  for  this  purpose,  under  Divine  guidance  ;  but  as  to 
their  ecclesiastical  arrangements,  we  have  no  proof  that  they  had 
any  express  Divine  direction,  still  less  that  the  polity  they  adopted 
was  unalterable.  The  extracts  I  have  formerly  given*  from  the 
works  of  many  of  our  greatest  divines  render  it  unnecessary  to  say 
a  word  more  on  this  point. 

I  have  now  gone  carefully  through  the  whole  of  the  Bishop's 
proof  of  his  positions  derived  from  the  Formularies  of  our  Church; 
and  I  willingly  leave  the  reader  to  form  his  own  opinion  upon  the 
two  conclusions  to  which  the  Bishop  would  lead  him,  namely : 
"  1.  That  the  words  of  our  Church's  23d  Article,  '  by  men  to 
whom  public  authority,'  &c,  must  mean  bishops;  and  2.  That 
our  Church  holds  that  the  power  of  Ordination  is  in  bishops  only." 
(P.  33.) 

His  Lordship  having  thus  concluded  his  argument  upon  the 
Formularies  of  our  Church,  proceeds  to  deal  with  our  Reformers 
in  a  similar  way.  "The  doctrine,"  he  observes,  "which  has  been 
thus  severely  censured  from  the  highest  place,  was  the  doctrine  of 
our  earliest  Reformers."  And  to  prove  it  to  be  so,  he  proceeds  to 
quote  two  works  notoriously  written  before  they  had  given  up  the 
errors  of  Popery  on  various  important  points ;  works  published 
during  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  which  advocate  the  seven 
Sacraments,  images  and  crucifixes  in  churches,  holy  water, 
creeping  to  the  cross,  prayer  for  the  dead,  et  id  genus  omne ; 
namely,  the  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,  and  the  Necessary 
Doctrine.  Such  references,  however,  have  this  great  advantage, 
that  they  show  us  the  desperate  shifts  to  which  his  Lordship's 
cause  is  reduced,  when  he  can  condescend  to  make  so  transparent 
an  attempt  to  mislead  his  readers.  In  these  two  works,  his  Lord- 
ship announces  that  he  found  the  power  of  Ordination  attributed 
only  to  bishops.  I  congratulate  him  upon  the  discovery  of  so 
important  a  help  to  his  cause.  Let  us  hope  that  his  Lordship 
will  not  search  farther  in  the  mine  he  has  opened,  for  the  next 
thing  perhaps  may  be  the  discovery  that  the  Reformers  held 
almost  all  the  doctrines  which  the  world  has  been  ip  the  habit  of 
thinking  that  they  repudiated,  and  then  in  what  a  position  shall 
we  be  placed  !  I  will  grant  his  Lordship,  then,  all  the  benefit 
which  his  extracts  from  those  works  can  bring  him,  though  I 

*  See  my  Doctrine  of  tlie  Church  of  Eng.  on  Non-Episc.  Ordinations. 


21 


might  take  exception  to  them  as  being  themselves  insufficient  for 
his  purpose ;  and  with  these  remarks  I  should  have  left  them  to 
their  fate,  but  for  a  very  characteristic  attack  of  his  Lordship 
upon  myself;  to  which,  however  unwilling  to  detain  the  reader 
with  any  personal  matters,  and  however  indifferent  to  any  such 
charges  from  such  a  quarter,  I  am  bound  to  offer  a  few  remarks  in 
reply  ;  and  shall  avail  myself  of  the  opportunity  of  giving  farther 
information  on  the  whole  subject. 

At  the  commencement  of  my  argument  on  this  matter  in  a 
former  Tract,*  before  giving  the  proofs  we  have  of  our  early 
Reformers  holding  the  doctrine  of  the  validity  under  some  circum- 
stances of  Presbyterian  Ordinations,  I  noticed  the  fact,  that  even 
before  the  Reformation  a  doctrine  was  held  which  opens  the  door 
to  such  a  view,  namely,  that  bishops  and  priests  are  of  one  and 
the  same  ministerial  order.  I  observed  that,  "  at  the  very  dawn 
of  the  Reformation,  the  bishops  and  clergy  of  our  Church  put 
forth  a  document  containing  the  very  doctrine  on  which  the  vali- 
dity of  Presbyterian  Ordinations  has  been  chiefly  rested,  namely, 
the  parity  of  bishops  and  presbyters  with  respect  to  the  ministerial 
powers  essentially  and  by  right  belonging  to  them  ;"  and  showed 
that  this  view  was  maintained  in  the  Institution  of  a  Christian 
Man,  and  the  Necessary  Doctrine ;  and  then  remarked,  that 
"this  view  certainly  goes  far  to  remove  the  difficulty  as  to  recog- 
nizing the  validity  of  Presbyterian  Ordination  in  the  absence  of 
bishops;"  carefully  (as  the  reader  will  see)  recognizing  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  views  ;  namely,  the  parity  of  order  in 
bishops  and  presbyters,  and  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  Ordina- 
tions ;  and  only  observing  that  the  former  view  went  far  to  remove 
the  difficulty  there  is  in  receiving  the  latter.  And  in  the  remarks 
immediately  following,  as  to  the  opinions  of  certain  divines  of  our 
Church  put  on  record  about  the  same  period,  I  noticed  how  some 
thought  that  bishops  and  priests  were  of  the  same  order,  and 
"  some  were  prepared  to  take  the  next  step,  and  grant  to  pres- 
byters under  some  circumstances  the  power  to  ordain  presbyters;" 
still  keeping  the  two  views  perfectly  distinct.  The  object  of 
course  was,  to  show  that  the  prevalence  of  this  view  at  the  very 
dawn  of  the  Reformation  easily  led  the  way  to  the  view  afterwards 
adopted  by  our  Reformers,  of  the  validity  under  some  circum- 
stances of  Presbyterian  Ordinations.  And  the  sole  point  in  attes- 
tation of  which  the  two  works  just  referred  to  were  cited,  was  the 
fact,  that  the  FOKMER  view  was  there  maintained.  And  so  far 
from  concealing  the  circumstance,  that  those  works  spoke  of 
bishops  as  the  persons  who  were  to  ordain,  I  gave,  among  the 
very  few  extracts  for  which  I  could  find  room,  one  which  expressly 
stated  it,  in  the  following  words :  "  As  the  Apostles  themselves, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  Church,  did  order  priests  and  bishops,  so 

*  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  on  Non-Episcopal  Ordinations,  &c,  reprinted 
from  the  Christian  Observer,-  which  of  course  accounts  for  its  being  anonymous,  though 
it  was  notorious  who  was  the  author. 


22 


they  appointed  and  willed  the  other  BISHOPS  after  them  to  do  the 
like."  (P.  14.) 

And  I  carefully  limited  the  "  parity  of  bishops  and  presbyters," 
maintained  in  the  works  I  quoted,  to  "  the  ministerial  powers 
essentially  and  by  right  belonging  to  them,"  in  order  not  to  include 
in  it  that  "  authority  and  jurisdiction  in  spiritual  regiment,"  as 
Archdeacon  Mason  calls  it,  in  which  bishops  had  "a  higher 
degree"  and  "  more  excellent  place."  (See  my  former  Tract,  p. 
38.)  There  may  be  ministerial  powers  belonging  to  priests  by  right 
of  their  ordination,  which,  on  grounds  affecting  the  welfare  of  the 
Church,  may  have  been  from  the  first  limited,  in  their  "  use  and 
exercise,"  (as  Dean  Field  says,)  to  some  of  their  number.  And 
many  divines,  as  I  shall  show  presently,  have  considered  the  power 
of  conferring  Orders  to  be  one  of  such  powers.  So  that  the  words 
I  used  were  carefully  selected,  so  as  to  limit  the  parity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  advocated  in  the  works  referred  to,  in  such  a  way 
as  not  to  include  the  authority  confided  to  bishops  in  the  matter  of 
Ordination. 

In  the  face  of  all  this  the  Bishop  has  not  been  ashamed  to 
represent  me  as  concealing  certain  passages  in  these  works,  which 
attribute  the  power  of  Ordination  to  bishops,  in  order  to  deceive 
the  reader. 

The  character  of  the  charge  is  apparent  from  what  I  have  already 
stated,  for  I  have  actually  given  one  such  passage,  though  my 
object  did  not  render  it  necessary  for  me  to  notice  them.  But  the 
truth  is,  that  the  Bishop  is,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  presently, 
utterly  unacquainted  with  the  subject  on  which  he  is  here  speak- 
ing. The  fact  that  these  works  attribute  the  power  of  Ordination 
to  bishops,  does  not  touch  my  statement  as  to  their  teaching ;  nor, 
indeed,  prove  that  their  authors  would  have  denied  the  validity, 
under  all  circumstances,  of  Presbyterian  Ordinations.  The  Bishop 
is  evidently  unconscious  of  what  an  assertion  of  the  parity  of  order 
in  bishops  and  priests  means,  and  supposes  that  because  the  Office 
of  Ordaining  is  maintained  to  be  confided  to  bishops,  my  position 
is  overthrown,  when  in  fact  it  is  not  touched;  as  I  shall  presently 
show. 

His  Lordship  scornfully  observes  :  "  I  dwell  not  on  these  strange 
omissions,  because,  being  anonymous  [the  article  appeared  in  the 
Christian  Observer,  and  the  author  was  well  known],  they  are 
not  very  likely  to  mislead  any  prudent  readers."  (P.  38.)  For 
once  I  am  happy  to  follow  the  Bishop's  example,  and  dwell  not  on 
these  suicidal  outbreaks  of  a  misguided  pen — and,  though  they 
are  not  anonymous,  for  the  same  reason. 

I  now  proceed  to  his  Lordship's  criticism  upon  my  remark,  that 
"  those  who  are  at  all  acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  history  know, 
that  this  view  had  long  been  advocated  by  many  of  the  divines  of 
the  Church  of  Kome,  especially  among  the  Scholastic  divines, 
including  their  great  founder,  Peter  Lombard,  the  Master  of  the 
Sentences."    (Doctrine,  cj-c.  p.  14.) 


•23 


Of  course,  I  need  not  add  a  word  to  show  the  truth  of  this 
remark.  And  as  to  its  bearing  upon  the  point  in  question,  I  was 
merely  following  the  leading  of  some  of  our  greatest  divines  in 
referring  to  this  as  preparing  the  way,  to  some  extent,  for  the 
doctrine  that  Presbyterian  Ordination  might,  under  some  circum- 
stances, be  valid.  I  need  only  instance  Dean  Field,  Archdeacon 
Mason,  and  Bishop  Cosin  ;*  particularly  the  High  Churchman 
Cosin,  who  goes  farther  than  I  have  done,  and  directly  refers  to 
the  Master  of  the  Sentences,  and  a  number  of  the  Scholastic 
divines,  as  holding  views  from  which  the  validity  of  the  Orders  of 
"  the  Reformed  French  Churches"  necessarily  folloios. 

The  remark,  however,  though  it  must  be  a  trite  one  with  those 
who  are  familiar  with  the  writings  of  our  great  divines,  seems  to 
have  moved  his  Lordship's  choler  in  no  ordinary  degree.  lie 
believes  that  "  no  considerable  school  among  them  ever  intended 
to  give  the  slightest  countenance  to  Ordination  by  any  but 
bishops."  (P.  38.)  Perhaps  so ;  no  more  than  they  intended  to 
give  countenance  to  what  happened  at  the  Reformation,  by  some 
of  their  statements  that  were  nevertheless  very  useful  to  the 
Reformers.  Moreover,  when  they  spoke  thus,  they  "  were  much 
influenced  by  their  desire  to  exalt  the  Popedom,"  in  depressing 
bishops  to  the  same  order  as  priests.  Well,  perhaps  they  were. 
But  what  then  ?  Why  then,  the  angry  but  vapid  conclusion  is  : 
"  So  much  for  the  advocacy,  by  many  divines  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  of  'the  parity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,'"  &c,  which 
does  not  seem  very  profound  reasoning.  And  then  as  to  Peter 
Lombard  and  the  Scholastic  divines,  in  whose  works  his  Lordship, 
wonderful  to  say,  does  "not  pretend  to  be  well  read,"  (which  is 
in  truth  very  evident,)  I  have  most  suspiciously  abstained  from 
giving  "the  slightest  reference  to  any  part  of  their  works"  in 
which  the  "  heretical  paradox"  (!)  with  which  I  charge  them  is 
to  be  found,  and  his  Lordship  has  looked  and  cannot  find  it.  And 
he  may  certainly  look  forever,  and  not  find  his  own  misrepresent- 
ation of  my  statement,  namely,  that  they  advocate  "  the  validity 
of  Presbyterian  Ordination,  because  they  [i;  e.  bishops  and  pres- 
byters] were  accounted  one  order."  (P.  40.)  But  if  he  had  only 
given  a  little  attention  to  the  statements  of  even  those  few  of  our 
own  divines  that  I  have  just  referred  to,  he  would  have  saved  him- 
self the  humiliation  of  such  a  remarkable  display  of  ignorance  on 
the  whole  matter  as  now  follows ;  and  which  comes  under  the 
guise  of  a  triumphant  reply  to  my  passing  reference,  on  a  subordi- 
nate point,  to  the  Scholastic  divines — a  reference  supported  by 
the  testimony  of  such  men  as  Bishop  Cosin,  and  the  others  whom 
I  have  quoted. 

His  Lordship  observes,  that  one  great  inducement  with  Peter 
Lombard  and  others  to  consider  bishops  and  priests  as  "one  order," 

*  See  my  former  Tract,  pp.  36-41  ;  where,  however,  in  my  extracts  from  Field  and 
Mason,  1  have  not  had  room  for  their  references  to  the  Scholastic  divines. 


24 


(and  that  they  did  so,  he  admits,)  was  their  desire  to  magnify  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  which  is  true  enough;  but  then,  adds 
•  the  Bishop,  as  some  ancient  authors  "accounted  bishops  a  distinct 
order,"  "a  difficulty  presented  itself  "  to  them,  which  "St.  Thomas 
thus  meets,"  (3d  Sup.  qu.  40,  c.  5 :)  "  Order  may  be  taken  in  two 
ways — in  one  as  it  is  a  sacrament ;  and  then,  as  has  been  said  be- 
fore, all  order  is  ordained  ad  Eucharistise  Sacramentum  ;  where- 
fore, since  the  bishop  has  here  no  superior  power  to  the  priest's, 
quantum  ad  hoc,  Episcopate  is  not  an  Order.  But  Order  may  be 
considered  in  another  way,  that  is,  as  it  is  a  certain  office,  in 
respect  to  certain  sacred  acts;  and  so,  as  the  bishop  has  a  power  in 
hierarchical  acts,  in  respect  to  the  mystical  Body  [the  Church] 
superior  to  the  priest,  the  Episcopate  will  be  an  Order :  and  it  is 
in  this  way  that  Dionysius,  and  even  the  Master  himself  [iv.  Dist. 
24,  s.  i.  m.  iii.]  speaks  of  it  as  an  Order.''*  (Pp.  42,  43.) 

Now,  first,  I  did  not  say  a  word  about  "  St.  Thomas  "  in  particu- 
lar, but  only  referred  to  some  of  the  Scholastic  divines,  as  Dean 
Eield  and  Bishop  Cosin  have  done  before  me ;  and  therefore  am 
not  responsible  for  anything  he  has  said.  But  the  fact  is,  that 
whatever  may  be  the  opinion  of  Thomas  Aquinas  or  any  of  the 
rest  about  the  validity,  under  some  circumstances,  of  Presbyterian 
Ordination  (which  is  a  question  I  have  not  touched),  here  is  just 
the  very  species  of  language  to  which  I  referred  as  held  by  some 
of  the  Scholastic  divines  ;  attributing  the  superiority  of  the  Bishop, 
not  to  his  having  superior  potvers  so  far  as  his  orders  were 
concerned,  but  only  so  far  as  concerned  the  office  bestowed  upon 
him  ;  that  is,  the  official  duties  he  had  to  perform.  So  that  the 
Bishop  has  quoted  against  me  a  passage  precisely  confirming  my 
statement ! 

And  then,  if  there  is  no  greater  difference  between  a  presbyter 
and  a  bishop  than  this,  may  not  a  presbyter,  under  some  circum- 
stances, be  authorized  by  his  Cliurch  to  perform  those  duties,  and 
such  acts  be  valid?  True  enough,  these  very  Scholastic  divines 
might  (though  I  do  not  think  all  did)  maintain  the  negative  of 
this;  but  that  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  ;  and  does  not  prove  that, 
in  laying  down  .these  views,  they  did  not  lay  a  groundwork  for 
those  who  chose  to  maintain  the  affirmative.  And  it  is  amusing 
enough,  that  the  Bishop,  through  his  want  of  acquaintance  with 
the  subject,  has  just  blundered  upon  the  very  passage  of  Aquinas 
which  our  learned  Dean  Field  quotes  as  maintaining  the  very  doc- 
trine which  the  Bishop  adduces  it  as  opposing;  as  will  be  seen  in 
the  extract  I  shall  give  almost  immediately  from  the  Dean's  work 
Of  the  Church. 

*  As  I  cannot  suppose  that  the  Bishop  would  not  have  given  the  exact  words  of  this 
passage,  it' he  had  seen  the  original  with  his  own  eyes,  he  will  permit  me  to  advise  him 
to  tell  the  party  w  ho  supplied  him  with  this  bit  of  information  to  be  more  accurate  in  his 
citations.  The  whole  of  the  last  clause,  "  and  it  is  in  this  way,"  &c,  is  a  substitution 
of  his  for  the  words  "  et  secundum  hoc  loquuntur  auctoritates  inducts;"  which  were,  no 
doubt,  Dionysius  and  "  Liber  Scntentiarum."  And  so  the  words  stand  in  the  Commen- 
tary of  Aquinas  upon  the  "  Liber  Sententiarum,"  from  which  the  whole  of  this  Supple- 
ment to  his  Summ.  Theolog.  was  compiled. 


25 


And  this  passage  of  Aquinas  serves  also  to  answer  the  Bishop's 
argument  from  the  words  in  the  Preface  to  our  Ordinal  as  to  the 
'•  three  orders  of  ministers."  (See  p.  22,  above.) 

Here,  however,  is  his  Lordship's  exclamation,  consequent  upon 
his  quotation.  "  Such,  and  only  such,  is  '  the  parity  of  bishops 
and  priests  as  one  Order'  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  on  which  our 
learned  ultra-Protestant  has  built  his  triumphant  argument  'in 
favor  of  Presbyterian  Ordination — such  the  statement  to  which, 
by  thus  adopting  them,  he  HAS  made  his  own;"  a  sentence 
founded  upon  a  blunder,  and  containing  two  palpable  misstate- 
ments. For  I  have  neither  built  my  argument  in  fa  vor  of  Presby- 
terian Ordination  on  such  statements,  nor  adopted  them  ;  but  simply 
stated  an  undeniable  fact  as  to  the  views  maintained  by  some  of 
the  Scholastic  divines,  and  the  effect  those  views  had  in  preparing 
the  way  for  the  doctrine  of  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  Ordina- 
tions; and  the  passage  of  Aquinas,  on  which  the  censure  is  founded, 
is  itself  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  my  statement. 

The  Bishop  tells  me  that  my  "  self-devotion"  to  my  theory  "  de- 
serves a  better  fate  than  that  which  it  is  doomed  to  meet  with."  I 
am  sorry  that  I  cannot  return  the  compliment.  I  hold  that  "  self- 
devotion"  to  any  theory,  such  as  will  induce  a  man  to  resort  to 
every  expedient  to  make  out  his  case,  deserves  no  "  better  fate" 
than  his  Lordship's  special  pleading  is,  he  may  rest  assured, 
"doomed  to  meet  with." 

And  after  having  charged  me  with  "  covering  my  own  statement 
with  the  authority  of  Rome,"  as  if  in  his  anger  he  had  forgotten 
all  self-respect  in  the  fabrication  of  his  charges,  he  assures  us  that 
it  is  "absolutely  useless;"  nay,  that  "so  far  as  Presbyterian 
Ordination  is  concerned,"  I  have  "  actually  raised  up  a  very  strong 
fresh  barrier  against  my  views  ;"  for,  wonderful  to  say,  he  has  dis- 
covered that  Peter  Lombard  and  Thomas  Aquinas  tell  us  that  to 
confer  Holy  Orders  appertains  to  bishops  only.  The  vulgar  sar- 
casms that  follow,  about  "  penning  statements  in  Evangelical 
Magazines,"  &c,  I  leave  to  their  fate,  only  regretting  that  a 
Bishop  should  descend  to  language  so  unworthy  of  his  position. 
I  would,  however,  point  out  to  the  reader's  notice  the  way  in  which 
Cranmer's  name  is  here  paraded  by  his  Lordship  (pp.  44,  45)  as 
on  his  side  of  the  question,  in  the  face  of  facts  as  notorious  as 
his  existence,  and  which  I  have  before  referred  to.* 

Now,  if  all  this  had  been  put  forth  by  a  hot-headed  youth  fresh 
from  college,  one  might  have  been  contented  with  reminding  him 
that  he  ought  to  have  made  himself  a  little  better  acquainted  with 
the  subject  before  he  spoke  so  positively  about  it.  But  when  it 
proceeds  from  one  whose  position  invests  whatever  comes  from 
him  with  a  certain  degree  of  influence,  and  who  has  set  himself 
up  as  the  great  Instructor  of  the  Church — insulting  his  Sovereign, 
reviling  and  excommunicating  his  Metropolitan,  and  hectoring 

*  See  Doctrine  of  Church  of  England,  &c.  pp.  15,  16. 


2G 


over  a  large  portion  of  the  Church,  because  they  do  not  adopt  his 
views  of  orthodoxy — one  is  bound  to  treat  it  in  a  different  "way, 
and  very  plainly  point  out  to  the  world  the  utter  incompetency  of 
this  self-constituted  oracle  for  the  office  he  would  fain  assume. 
And  I  must  add,  that  the  vaunts  of  superior  theological  learning 
made  in  behalf  of  a  certain  party  among  us  are  in  odd  contrast 
with  the  stubborn  testimony  of  facts — facts  dating  from  their  first 
rise. 

The  correctness  of  my  statement  as  to  the  views  of  some  of  the 
Scholastic  divines,  is  shown  by  the  statement  of  the  learned 
Morinus,  in  his  work  on  Ordinations. 

He  says  that  there  are  four  views  among  "  Catholics"  on  this 
subject ;  and  adds : — 

"  Prima  ct  antiquis  Scholasticis,  eorumque  Principibus  communissima  est, 
Episcopatum  characterem  non  imprimere,  non  esse  Ordinem  seu  Sacramen- 
tum  a  Sacerdotio  distinctum,  Episcopatum  nihil  illi  addere  ejusmodi ;  sed 
tantum  per  consecrationeni  aliquid  sacramentale  :  quidquid  Ordinis  proprie 
dicti,  qua  ratione  dicuntur  septem  Ordines  ;  quidquid  Sacramenti  et  charae- 
teris  habet,  illud  a  Sacerdotio  quo  necessario  ante  Episcopatum  imbutus  esse 
debet,  haurire.  Sed  Episcopatum  per  se  nihil  aliud  dicere  quam  officium, 
dignitatem,  potestatem,  autoritatem  Sacerdoti  datam  multd  ampliorem  et 
augustiorem,  per  consecrationem  Episcopalem,  ea  quam  per  Sacerdotii  cha- 
racterem nactus  feurat."  (De  Ordiu.  Antw.  1G95,  pt.  3,  p.  2G.) 

And  he  remarks  :  11  Usee  passim  Scliolasticorum  Doctorum  prin- 
cipes ;"  referring  to  Hugo  a  S.  Vict.,  Peter  Lombard,  Alexander 
Hal.,  Bonaventura,  &c.  &c,  and  among  the  rest  Thomas  Aquinas, 
in  the  very  passage  which  the  Bishop  has  quoted  from  him.  And 
in  the  following  chapter,  showing  that  this  view  was  maintained 
by  many  of  the  Fathers,  he  notices  the  custom  that  prevailed  for 
many  years  at  Alexandria  :  "Presbyteros  Alexandrinos  mortuo 
Episcopo  suo  unum  ex  Ordine  et  gremio  Ecclesise  sure  elegisse, 
thronoque  excelsiori  collocasse  et  Episcopum  appellasse;"  to  whom 
of  course,  when  placed  in  that  office,  though  without  any  fresh 
Ordination  or  Consecration,  the  duty  of  Ordination  belonged.  And 
among  other  writers,  he  cites  the  author  of  the  Quvestiones  Veteris 
et  Novi  Testamenti,  who  lived  before  Augustine,  who  says  :  "  Quid 
est  enim  Episcopus,  nisi  primus  presbyter,  hoc  est  summus  sacer- 
dos  ....  In  Alexandria  et  per  totam  ^Egyptum  si  desit  Episjopus, 
consecrat  Presbyter."    (Ib.  pp.  30,  31.) 

Consequently,  on  this  view  of  the  matter,  a  presbyter  needs  no 
fresh  Ordination  to  enable  him  to  confer  Orders.  His  Ordination 
as  presbyter  is  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  fulfil  all  the  duties  of  the 
ministerial  office,  and  the  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  pres- 
byter is  not  as  to  "  the  ministerial  powers,  essentially  and  by  right 
belonging  to  them,"  but  as  to  the  exercise  of  those  powers,  which 
has  been  restrained  to  a  certain  extent  in  those  presbyters  who 
have  not  been  appointed  to  the  Episcopal  office. 

But  the  "  validity"  of  Presbyterian  Orders  is  a  different  ques- 
tion. And  his  Lordship's  charge  against  me,  of  citing  the  Scho- 
lastic divines  as  having  maintained  that  doctrine,  only  shows  his 


27 


want  of  acquaintance  with  the  subject.  The  solution  of  that 
question  depends  upon  the  degree  in  winch  the  restraint  laid  upon 
presbyters  in  the  exercise  of  their  poivers  is  binding  upon  the  whole 
Church.  Many  of  the  Scholastic  divines  who  hold  the  view  I  have 
just  noticed,  would  no  doubt  have  maintained  that  that  restraint 
•was  jure  divino,  and  so  absolutely  binding.  A  few  of  them,  how- 
ever, maintain  (as  Morinus  admits,  p.  34)  that  a  bishop  is  above  a 
presbyter  only  "jure  humano,  non  divino ;"  and  therefore,  though 
even  they  probably  would  have  contended  earnestly  for  the  bind- 
ing nature  of  this  ecclesiastical  arrangement,  there  was  but  a 
very  short  step  from  their  doctrine  to  that  of  the  validity,  under 
many  circumstances,  of  Presbyterian  Ordination. 

Before  I  pass  on,  it  may  be  well  to  present  to  the  reader  the 
statement  of  our  learned  Dean  Field,  on  the  whole  subject ;  in- 
cluding his  account  of  the  views  of  those  Scholastic  divines  whom 
the  Bishop  charges  me  with  misrepresenting.  Not  that  I  am  dis- 
posed to  attribute  any  great  weight  to  the  teaching  of  the  Scholas- 
tic divines,  and  hence  I  made  but  a  passing  allusion  to  it  in  the 
Tract  tliat  has  called  forth  the  Bishop  of  Exeter's  ire  ;  but  the 
Dean's  statement  will  show  what  degree  of  weight  is  due  to  his 
Lordship's  account  of  the  matter. 

"  The  Apostles  of  Christ  and  their  successors,  when  they  planted  the 
Churches,  so  divided  the  people  of  God  converted  by  their  ministry  into 
particular  Churches,  that  each  city  and  the  places  near  adjoining  did  make 
but  one  Church.  Now  because  the  unity  and  peace  of  each  particular  church 
of  God  and  flock  of  his  sheep  dependeth  on  the  unity  of  the  pastor,  and  yet 
the  necessities  of  the  many  duties  that  are  to  be  performed  in  churches  of  so 
large  extent  require  more  Ecclesiastical  ministers  than  one ;  therefore, 
though  there  be  many  presbyters,  that  is,  many  fatherly  guides  of  one 
Church,  yet  there  is  one  amongst  the  rest  that  is  specially  Pastor  of  the  place, 
who,  for  distinction  sake,  is  named  a  Bishop;  to  whom  an  eminent  and 
peerless  power  is  given,  for  the  avoiding  of  schisms  and  factions:  and  the 
rest  are  but  his  assistants  and  coadjutors,  and  named  by  the  general  name  of 
presbyters.  So  that  in  the  performance  of  the  acts  of  Ecclesiastical  ministry, 
when  he  is  present,  and  will  do  them  himself,  they  must  give  place  ; 
and  in  his  absence,  or  when  being  present  he  needeth  assistance,  they 
may  do  nothing  without  his  consent  and  liking.  Yea,  so  far  for  order's  sake 
is  he  preferred  above  the  rest,  that  some  things  are  specially  reserved  to  him 
only,  as  the  ordaining  of  such  as  should  assist  him  in  the  work  of  his  ministry, 
the  reconciling  of  penitents,  confirmation  of  such  as  were  baptized,  by  impo- 
sition of  hands,  dedication  of  Churches,  and  such  like.  These  being  the 
diverse  sorts  and  kinds  of  Ecclesiastical  power,  it  will  easily  appear  to  all  them 
that  enter  into  the  due  consideration  thereof,  that  the  power  of  ecclesiastical 
or  sacred  order,  that  is,  the  power  and  authority  to  intermeddle  with  things 
pertaining  to  the  service  of  God,  and  to  perform  eminent  acts  of  gracious 
efficacy,  tending  to  the  procuring  of  the  eternal  good  of  the  sons  of  men,  is 
equal  and  the  same  in  all  those  whom  we  call  presbyters,  that  is,  fatherly  guides 
of  God's  Church  and  people:  and  that,  onlv  for  order's  sake,  and  the  preserv- 
ation of  peace,  there  is  a  limitation  of  the  use  and  exercise  of  the  same.  Here- 
unto AGREE  ALL  THE  BEST  LEARNED  AMONGST  THE  RoMANISTS  THEMSELVES, 
FREELY  CONFESSING  THAT  THAT  WnEREIN  A  BlSHOl'  EXCELLETn  A  PRESBVTER,  IS 
NOT  A  DISTINCT  AND  HIGHER  ORDER,  OR  TOWER  OF  ORDER,  BUT  A  KIND  OF  DIGNITY 

and  office  or  employment  only.*    Which  they  prove,  because  a  presbyter 

*  To  this  sentence  he  attaches  the  following  references;  the  first  heinjr,  as  the  reader 
will  observe,  the  very  passage  in  Thomas  Aquinas  cited  by  the  Bishop  for  a  contrary 


28 


ordained  per  saltiim,  that  never  was  consecrated  or  ordained  deacon,  may 
notwithstanding  do  all  those  acts  that  pertain  to  the  deacon's  order  (because 
the  higher  order  doth  always  imply  in  it  the  lower  and  inferior  in  an  emi- 
nent and  excellent  sort) ;  but  a  bishop  ordained  per  saltum,  that  never  had 
the  ordination  of  a  presbyter,  can  neither  consecrate  and  administer  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  body,  nor  ordain  a  presbyter,  himself  being  none, 
nor  do  any  act  peculiarly  pertaining  to  presbyters.  Whereby  it  is  most  evi- 
dent, that  that  wherein  a  bishop  excelleth  a  presbyter,  is  not  a  distinct  power 
of  order,  but  an  eminency  and  dignity  only,  special/;/  yielded  to  one  above  all 
the  rest  of  the  same  rank,  for  order's  sake,  and  to  preserve  the  unity  and  peace  of 
the  Church.  Hence  it  followeth,  that  many  things  which,  in  some  cases, 
presbyters  may  lawfully  do,  are  peculiarly  reserved  unto  bishops,  as  Hierome 
noteth  (  Contra  Luciferianos),  Points  ad  honorem  sacerdotii,  qiiavi  ad  legis  ne- 
cessitutem ;  rather  for  the  honor  of  their  ministry  than  the  necessity  of  any  laic. 
And  therefore  we  read  (Grey.  Januario  Ep.  1.  3,  indict.  12,  epist.  2G.)  that 
presbyters  in  some  places,  and  at  some  times,  did  impose  hands,  and  confirm 
such  as  were  baptized  ;  which  when  Gregory  bishop  of  Home  would  wholly 
have  forbidden,  there  was  so  great  exception  taken  to  him  for  it,  that  he  left 
it  free  again.  And  who  knoweth  not,  that  all  presbyters  in  cases  of  necessity 
may  absolve  and  reconcile  penitents  (Garth.  3,  can.  32);  a  thing  in  ordinary 
course  appropriated  unto  bishops?  and  why  not  by  the  same  reason  ordain 
presbyters  and  deacons  in  cases  of  like  necessity?  For  seeing  the  cause 
why  they  are  forbidden  to  do  these  acts,  is,  because  to  bishops  ordinarily  the 
care  of  all  churches  is  committed,  and  to  them  in  all  reason  the  ordination  of 
such  as  must  serve  in  the  Church  pertaineth,  that  have  the  chief  care  of  the 
Church,  and  have  churches  wherein  to  employ  them  ;  which  only  bishops 
have  as  long  as  they  retain  their  standing  ;  and  not  presbyters,  being  but 
assistants  to  bishops  in  their  churches;  if  they  become  enemies  to  God  and 
true  religion,  in  case  of  such  necessity,  as  the  care  and  government  of  the 
Church  is  devolved  to  the  presbyters  remaining  Catholic,  and  being  of  a  better 
spirit ;  so  the  duty  of  ordaining  such  as  are  to  assist  or  succeed  them  in  the 
work  of  the  ministry  pertains  to  them  likewise.  For  if  the  power  of  order, 
and  authority  to  intermeddle  in  things  pertaining  to  God's  service,  be  the 
same  in  all  presbyters,  and  that  they  be  limited  in  the  execution  of  it,  only 
for  order's  sake,  so  that  in  case  of  necessity  every  of  them  may  baptize,  and 
confirm  them  whom  they  have  baptized,  absolve  and  reconcile  penitents, 
and  do  all  those  other  acts  which  regularly  are  appropriated  unto  the  bishop 
alone  :  there  is  no  reason  to  be  given,  but  that  in  case  of  necessity,  wherein 
all  bishops  were  extinguished  by  death,  or  being  fallen  into  heresy,  should 
refuse  to  ordain  any  to  serve  God  in  his  true  worship;  but  that  presbyters,  as 
they  may  do  all  other  acts,  whatsoever  special  challenge  bishops  in  ordinary 
course  make  unto  them,  might  do  this  also.  Who  then  dare  condemn  all  those 
worthy  ministers  of  God,  that  were  ordained  by  presbyters  in  sundry  churches 
of  the  world,  at  such  times  as  bishops  in  those  parts  where  they  lived  opposed 
themselves  against  the  truth  of  God,  and  persecuted  such  as  professed  it  ?" 

And  he  then  adds  some  references  to  show  that,  even  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  Ordinations  of  this  nature  have  been  held  by 
some  to  be  valid  ;  but  into  this  question  it  is  unnecessary  to  enter. 
And  as  it  respects  the  early  Church,  he  remarks : — 

"  All  that  may  be  alleged  out  of  the  Fathers,  for  proof  of  the  contrary,  may 
be  reduced  to  two  heads.  For  first,  whereas  they  make  all  such  ordinations 
void,  as  are  made  by  presbyters,  it  is  to  be  understood  according  to  the 
strictness  of  the  Canons  in  use  in  their  time,  and  not  absolutely  in  the  nature  of 

purpose  :  Thomas,  3,  p.  in  add  it.  qusst.  40,  art.  5.  Bonaven.  1.  4,  dist.  24,  ar.2,  q.  3.  Do- 
minicus  a  Soto,  I.  10,  de  justitia  et  jure,  q.  l,art.  2,  and  in  4,  dist.  24,  q.  2,  art.  3.  Arma- 
canus,  1.  11,  ostendit  nullum  pralatum  plus  habere  de  potestate  sacramentali  sive 
ordinis,  quam  simplicis  sacerdotes.  Cameracensis  in  4,  qua:st.  4.  Contarenus  de 
Sacramentis,  lib.  4. 


29 


the  thing;  which  appears,  in  that  they  likewise  make  all  ordinations  tine 
ti/ido  to  be  void;  all  ordinations  of  bishops  ordained  by  fewer  than  three 
bishops  with  the  metropolitan  ;  all  ordinations  of  presbyters  by  bishops  out 
of  their  own  churches  without  special  leave  ;  whereas,  I  am  well  assured,  the 
Romanists  will  not  pronounce  any  of  these  to  be  void,  though  the  parties  so 
doing  are  not  excusable  from  all  fault.  Secondly,  their  sayings  are  to  be 
understood  regularly,  not  without  exception  of  some  special  cases  that  may 
fall  out."* 

In  a  subsequent  part  of  his  work  he  reverts  to  the  same  subject, 
and  adds  the  following  remarks  : — 

"  Touching  the  pre-eminence  of  bishops  above  presbyters,  there  is  some 
difference  among  the  School-divines.  For  the  best  learned  amongst  them  are 
of  opinion,  that  bishops  are  not  greater  than  presbyters  in  the  power  of  con- 
secration or  order;  but  only  in  the  exercise  of  it,  and  in  the  power  of  juris- 
diction, seeing  presbyters  may  preach,  and  minister  the  greatest  of  all  sacra- 
ments, by  virtue  of  their  consecration  and  order,  as  well  as  bishops.  Touch- 
ing the  power  of  consecration  or  order,  saith  Durandus  (in  4  Sent.  (list.  24,  q. 
5),  it  is  much  doubted  of  among  divines,  whether  any  be  greater  therein  than 
an  ordinary  presbyter:  for  Ilierome  seemeth  to  have  been  of  opinion,  that 
the  highest  power  of  consecration  or  order  is  the  power  of  a  priest  or  elder; 
so  that  every  priest  in  respect  of  his  priestly  power  may  minister  all  sacra- 
ments, confirm  the  baptized,  give  all  Orders,  all  blessings  and  consecrations; 
but  that  for  the  avoiding  of  the  peril  of  schism,  it  was  ordained  that  one 
should  be  chosen,  who  should  be  named  a  bishop,  whom  the  rest  should 
obey,  and  to  whom  it  was  reserved  to  give  Orders,  and  to  do  some  such  other 
things  as  none  but  bishops  do.  And  afterwards  he  saith,  that  Hierome  is 
clearly  of  this  opinion  ;  not  making  the  distinction  of  bishops  from  presby- 
ters a  mere  human  invention,  or  a  tiling  not  necessary,  as  Aerius  did  ;  but 
thinking  that,  amongst  them  who  are  equal  in  the  power  of  order,  and  equally 
enabled  to  do  any  sacred  act,  the  Apostles  (for  the  avoiding  of  schism  and 
confusion,  and  the  preservation  of  unity,  peace,  and  order)  ordained  that  in 
each  church  one  should  be  before  and  above  the  rest,  without  whom  the  rest 
should  do  nothing,  and  to  whom  some  things  should  be  peculiarly  reserved, 
as  the  dedicating  of  churches,  reconciling  of  penitents,  confirming  of  the  bap- 
tized, and  the  ordination  of  such  as  are  to  serve  in  the  work  of  the  ministry  ; 
of  which  the  three  former  were  reserved  to  the  bishop  alone,  potiusadkonorem 
Sacerdolii,  quam  ad  legis  necessitatem  ;  that  is,  rather  to  honor  his  priestly  and 
bishoply  place,  than  for  that  those  things  at  all  may  not  be  done  by  any 
other.  And  therefore  we  read  (Ambros.  in  4  ad  Ephes.)  that  at  some  times, 
and  in  some  cases  of  necessity,  presbyters  did  reconcile  penitents,  and  by 
imposition  of  hands  confirm  the  baptized.  But  the  ordaining  of  men  to  serve 
in  the  work  of  the  ministry  is  more  properly  reserved  to  them.  For  seeing 
none  are  to  be  ordained  at  random,  but  to  serve  in  some  church,  and  none 
have  churches  but  bishops,  all  other  being  but  assistants  to  them  in  their 
churches,  none  may  ordain  but  they  only,  unless  it  be  in  cases  of  extreme 
necessity,  as  when  all  bishops  are  extinguished  by  death,  or,  fallen  into 
heresy,  obstinately  refuse  to  ordain  men  to  preach  the  Gospel  of  Christ  sin- 
cerely. And  then  as  the  care  and  charge  of  the  Church  is  devolved  to  the 
presbyters  remaining  Catholic,  so  likewise  the  ordaining  of  men  to  assist 
them  and  succeed  them  in  the  work  of  the  ministry.  But  hereof  I  have 
spoken  at  large  elsewhere.  Wherefore,  to  conclude  this  point,  we  see  that  the 
best  learned  amongst  the  Schoolmen  are  of  opinion,  that  bishops  are  no 
greater  than  presbyters  in  the  power  of  consecration  or  order,  but  only  in  the 
exercise  of  it,  and  in  the  power  of  jurisdiction,  with  whom  Stapleton  [Eelect. 
Contro.  12,  q.  3,  art.  3,)  seemeth  to  agree,  saying  expressly  that  Quoad  ordi- 
nem  sacerdotalem,  et  ea  quaz  sunt  ordinis,  that  is,  in  respect  uf  sacerdotal  order, 
and  the  things  that  pertain  to  order,  they  are  equal;  and  that  therefore  in  all 


*  Of  the  Church,  bk.  3,  c.  39,  2d  ed.  1623,  pp.  156-158. 


30 


administration  of  sacraments  which  depend  of  order,  they  are  all  equal 
potentate,  though  not  exercitio;  that  is,  in  power,  though  not  in  the  execu- 
tion of  things  to  be  done  by  virtue  of  that  power.  Whence  it  will  follow, 
that  ordination,  being  a  kind  of  sacrament,  and  so  depending  of  the  power 
of  order,  in  the.judgment  of  our  adversaries  might  be  ministered  by  presby- 
ters, but  that,  for  the  avoiding  of  such  horrible  confusions,  scandals,  and 
schisms,  as  would  follow  upon  such  promiscuous  ordinations,  they  are  re- 
strained by  the  decree  of  the  Apostles  ;  and  none  permitted  to  do  any  such 
thing,  except  it  be  in  case  of  extreme  necessity,  but  bishops,  who  have  the 
power  of  order  in  common  together  with  presbyters,  but  yet  so,  as  that  they  excel 
them  in  the  execution  of  (kings  to  be  done  by  virtue  of  that  power,  and  in  the 
power  of  jurisdiction  also." 

And  he  then  proceeds  to  animadvert  upon  Bellarmine's  opposite 
view  on  the  subject.  (Ib.  bk.  5,  c.  27,  pp.  500,  501.) 

I  have  given  these  passages  in  extenso,  because  they  will  serve  to 
show  the  reader  the  grounds  upon  which  the  validity  of  Presbyterian 
Ordinations  is  rested  in  one  of  the  standard  works  of  our  Church. 
And  with  them  he  may  compare  the  recent  effusions  with  which 
our  Church  has  been  favored  on  the  same  subject. 

And  I  must  add,  that  if  I  had  been  anxious  to  dwell  upon  this 
argument,  derived  from  ante-Reformation  authorities,  for  the 
parity  of  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  I  might  have  added 
several  others  of  a  more  stringent  kind. 

I  might  have  pointed  to  early  canons  of  our  own  Church  recog- 
nizing this  doctrine ;  as,  for  instance,  to  one  in  the  Canons  of 
Ecgb right,  Archbishop  of  York,  in  750,  Can.  27:  "That  the 
bishop  in  the  church  sit  elevated  above  the  Bench  of  Presbyters, 
but  in  the  House  let  him  know  himself  to  be  a  colleague  of  the 
presbyters."  ( Wilk.  C'oncil.  vol.  i.  p.  103.)  And  again,  to  the 
17th  of  Elfric's  Canons,  in  970:  "  There  is  no  more  difference  be- 
tween a  bishop  and  a  presbyter,  than  that  the  bishop  is  appointed  to 
ordain  presbyters,  and  to  confirm  children,  and  to  hallow  churches, 
and  to  take  care  of  God's  rights:  since  it  would  be  too  much,  if 
every  presbyter  might  do  this :  FOR  they,  have  the  same  order, 

BUT  THE  OTHER  IS  MORE  HONORABLE."  (Ib.  p.  252.) 

And  above  all,  I  might  have  referred  to  an  authority  which 
I  am  sure  his  Lordship  would  have  received  with  the  most  pro- 
found respect.  Indeed,  I  am  astonished  beyond  measure  that  his 
Lordship  should  venture  for  a  moment  to  question  the  truth  of 
the  doctrine  in  the  face  of  the  authority  I  am  about  to  mention. 
Has  his  Lordship  already  forgotten  the  fourth  Council  of  Carthage  ? 
— a  Council  of  which  he  recently  informed  his  Metropolitan,  that 
he  "  need  not  remind"  him,  that  it  was  "received  generally,  and 
one  whose  canons  were  adopted  by  the  General  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon,''  and  is  "thus  seen  to  have  had  the  authority  of  the  ivhole 
Catholic  Church  ?"*  His  Lordship,  therefore  (to  use  his  own  lan- 
guage to  his  Metropolitan),  "will  not  consider  it  irrelevant,  if  I 
present"  him  with  the  35th  Canon  of  this  Council,  which  runs 
thus :  "  Ut  Episcopus  in  Ecclesia  et  in  consessu  presbyterorum 


*  Letter  to  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  p.  15. 


81 


sublimior  sedeat.  Intra  domum  vero  collegium  se  presbi/terorvm 
esse  cognoscat."  (Concil.  ed.  Hardouin.  torn.  1,  col.  981.)  So 
that,  according  to  his  Lordship's  own  showing,  my  "  heretical 
paradox"  has  "  the  authority  of  the  whole  Catholic  Church"  of 
primitive  times  in  its  favor.  I  need  not,  indeed,  inform  him  of 
my  own  opinion  of  the  authority  of  this  Council,  which  remains 
perfectly  unaltered  by  anything  which  his  Lordship's  defenders 
have  urged  against  my  remarks  upon  it ;  and  which  certainly  is 
not  likely  to  be  changed  by  the  very  amusing  blunder  of  his 
favored  advocate  Mr.  Watson,  who  actually  confounds  the  Canons 
of  this  fourth  Council  of  Carthage  with  what  is  called  the  Code  of 
the  African  Church  ;  a  specimen  of  the  remainder  of  his  pamphlet; 
which  I  leave  to  the  fate  the  public  have  already  assigned  to  it. 
I  can  assure  his  Lordship,  therefore,  that  by  me  he  will  not  be  con- 
demned for  rebellion  against  the  doctrine  of  "  the  whole  Catholic 
Church"  for  not  accepting  its  canons;  but  his  Lordship's  self- 
condemnation  must  be  complete. 
I  now  go  on  with  my  task. 

The  Bishop  next  proceeds  to  deal  with  the  argument  derived 
from  the  writings  and  conduct  of  our  divines.  And  here  his  Lord- 
ship's attempt  at  evidence  of  this  kind  in  his  favor  almost 
amounts  to  a  confession  of  failure.  With  the  exception  of  Cran- 
mer,  whose  views  were  notoriously  opposed  to  his  doctrine,  he 
quotes  none  for  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  He  mentions,  indeed, 
the  name  of  Ridley  (p.  44),  but  makes  no  reference  to  any  part  of 
his  writings;  and  therefore,  in  reply  to  this  vague  claim,  I  shall 
merely  refer  the  reader  to  Ridley's  Letter  to  Grindal,  then  at 
Frankfort,  in  which  he  speaks  of  his  prayers  to  God  "  for  all 
those  Churches  abroad  through  the  world,  which  have  forsaken  the 
kingdom  of  Antichrist,  and  professed  openly  the  purity  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,"  ( Works,  p.  393  ;)  in  which  his  recog- 
nition of  those  Churches  is,  I  suppose,  sufficiently  manifest. 

And  as  to  other  testimonies  of  this  period,  they  exist  in  abund- 
ance.   Thus  Archdeacon  Philpot,  the  martyr,  says  : — 

"  I  allow  the  Church  of  Geneva,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  same  ;  for  it  is 
una,  catholica,  et  aposlolica,  and  doth  follow  the  doctrine  that  the  Apostles 
did  preach  ;  and  the  doctrine  taught  and  preached  in  King  Edward's  days 
was  also  according  to  the  same."    (Works,  p.  153.) 

Thus  also  we  find  Bishop  Hooper,  and  Drs.  Cox  and  Aylmer, 
both  afterwards  bishops,  addressing  the  ministers  of  the  Foreign 
Reformed  Churches  as  dear  brethren  and  ministers  of  the  Church 
of  Christ;*  and  this  before  any  of  our  Reformers  were  indebted  to 
them  for  an  asylum  in  time  of  persecution  ;  a  circumstance  which 
the  Bishop  somewhat  unfairly  adduces  as  rendering  invalid  a  similar 
testimony  from  the  divines  of  Elizabeth's  reign. 

Many  other  similar  testimonies  abound. 

*  See  Letters  relative  to  Engl.  Reform.  Parl.cr  Sou.  cd.  vol.  i.  pp.  33,  cl  s  ,  1 19,  ct  s., 


32 


On  proceeding  to  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  the  Bishop  finds  him- 
self, in  the  early  part  of  that  reign,  in  a  state  of  things  so  entirely 
opposed  to  his  views,  that  he  is  obliged  to  shut  up  all  argument  in 
some  general  remarks  as  to  the  gratitude  of  our  Reformers  towards 
the  foreign  Calvinists  for  the  asylum  afforded  them  in  the  reign 
of  Mary,  producing  "  a  great  laxity  of  practice  in  our  Church" 
"in  the  Article  of  Orders."  (P.  45.)  "In  Bhort,"  he  observes, 
after  noticing  a  few  cases  of  this  kind,  "  sympathy  with  the  foreign 
Calvinists,  whom  so  many  of  the  bishops  and  higher  dignitaries 
in  the  age  of  Elizabeth  at  once  loved  as  their  benefactors  and 
reverenced  as  their  teachers,  continued  to  influence  both  doctrine 
and  practice  in  the  English  Church  during  that  whole  generation.'' 
(P.  46.)  And  these  are  the  very  men,  let  us  observe,  by  whom 
our  Formularies — the  Articles  as  they  now  stand,  and  the  Prayer- 
Book  except  a  few  alterations  not  affecting  the  doctrine  in  question 
— were  drawn  up.  And  the  only  two  persons  whom  the  Bishop 
has  ventured  to  claim  as  witnessing  in  his  favor,  during  the 
whole  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign,  are  Hooker  and  Bishop  Bilson. 

How  far  the  former  of  these  is  a  supporter  of  his  Lordship's 
views,  may  be  judged  from  the  passages  I  have  formerly  quoted 
from  him  on  this  subject.*  But  let  us  see  how  the  Bishop  endea- 
vors to  make  good  his  ground  in  claiming  his  support.  He  first 
criticizes  and  condemns  Hooker's  doctrine,  "  that  the  whole 
Church  visible  is  the  true  original  subject  of  all  power;"  and  also 
the  remark  which  flows  from  it,  namely,  that  by  the  imposition  of 
the  bishop's  hands  "  the  Church  giveth  power  of  Order  both  unto 
presbyters  and  deacons;"  which  the  Bishop  sees  to  be  clearly 
opposed  to  his  statement  as  to  what  is  required  for  lawful  ordina- 
tion. On  this  I  offer  no  remark,  as  it  is  not  any  part  of  my  task 
to  defend  Hooker  against  the  Bishop  of  Exeter.  But  he  proceeds 
to  fix  upon  a  remark  of  Hooker,  that  ordinations  must  ordinarily 
be  by  bishops,  except  in  the  case  of  an  extraordinary  commission 
by  God,  or  "  when  the  exigence  of  necessity  doth  constrain  to 
leave  the  usual  ways  I  of  the  Church — when  the  Church  must 
needs  have  some  ordained,  and  neither  hath  nor  can  have  possibly 
a  bishop  to  ordain."  (Pp.  46,  47.)  And  he  argues  that,'  as  this 
necessity  cannot  now  be  pleaded  for  the  Foreign  Reformed 
Churches,  "  Hooker  must  be  cited  as  a  very  strong  authority 
against  the  Orders  of  the  Foreign  Protestants,  whose  case  we  are 
considering."  (P.  49.) 

Now  on  this  argument  from  "  necessity"  I  have  already  offered 
some  remarks,t  and  shown  that  the  term,  as  used  by  our  early 
divines  in  this  matter,  was  not  intended  to  denote  such  a  neces- 
sity as  the  Bishop  here  supposes,  that  is,  that  there  should  be  no 
bishops  in  the  world  who  would  give  them  ordination,  but  only 
one  arising  from  a  failure  of  orthodox  bishops  in  the  Church  in 

*  See  Doctr.  of  Ch.  of  Engl,  on  Non-Ep.  Ord.  pp.  20,  21. 

t  Reply  to  Archdeacon  Cliurton  and  Chancellor  Harington,  p.  26. 


33 


which  such  ordinations  took  place.  But  in  truth  the  Bishop  him- 
self has  saved  me  all  farther  trouble  by  refuting  bimself ;  for  he 
has  been  at  pains  to  show,  that  in  Hooker's  own  time  the  Foreign 
Protestant  Churches  might  easily  have  obtained  Episcopal  Orders. 
(P.  49.)  Consequently,  as  they  did  not  do  so,  and  yet,  neverthe- 
less, Hooker  held""'  that  their  Orders  (instancing  in  Beza's,  which 
had-  less  in  their  favor  than  some  others)  were  valid,  he  "must  be 
cited  as  a  very  strong  authority,"  to  use  the  Bishop's  own  words, 
in  favor  of  the  Orders  of  the  Foreign  Protestants,  whose  case  we 
are  considering. 

The  reply  to  the  extracts  from  Bishop  Bilson  is,  that  he  is 
speaking  of  the  ordinary  state  of  things,  in  which,  as  established 
by  the  custom  of  the  Church,  bishops  only  might  ordain.  But 
that  he  did  not  mean  to  tie  the  Church  to  bishops,  is  evident 
from  what  he  says  in  another  work  ;  that,  "  to  bishops  speaking 
the  word  of  God,  princes  as  well  as  others  must  yield  obedience  ; 
but  if  bishops  pass  their  commission  and  speak  besides  the  word 
of  God,  what  they  list,  both  prince  and  people  may  despise 
them."| 

To  the  extracts  from  Hooker  and  Bishop  Bilson,  the  only  other 
testimonies  which  his  Lordship  has  added  in  favor  of  his  views, 
from  the  Reformation  to  the  present  day,  are  two  from  Bishops 
Sanderson  and  Pearson. 

To  set  before  the  reader  the  views  of  the  former,  he  quotes  a 
passage  in  which  the  following  sentence  occurs:  "A  man  might 
therefore  justly  wonder  how  it  should  come  to  pass  that  the  Epis- 
copal power,  in  that  which  is  peculiar  to  bishops  above  other  their 
brethren  in  the  ministry,  viz.,  the  ordaining  of  priests  and  deacons, 
and  the  managing  of  the  keys,  cannot  be  said  to  be  of  God,  but  it 
must  be  forthwith  condemned  to  be  highly  derogatory  to  the  regal 
power,"  &c.  (P.  51.)  And  then,  adds  the  Bishop  of  Exeter, 
"having  stated  various  ways  in  which  divino  jure  may  be  under- 
stood, he  thus  gives  his  own  view,  in  a  Postscript :  '  My  opinion 
is,  that  Episcopal  government  is  not  to  be  derived  merely  from 
Apostolic  practice  or  institution  ;  but  that  it  is  originally  founded 
in  the  Person  and  Office  of  the  Messiah  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who,  being  sent  by  His  Heavenly  Father  to  be  the  great  Apostle, 
Bishop,  and  Pastor  of  His  Church,  &c.  .  .  .  did  afterwards,  before 
His  ascension  into  Heaven,  send  and  empower  His  holy  Apostles, 
giving  them  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  His  Father  had  before  sent  Him 
to  execute  the  same  Apostolical,  Episcopal,  and  Pastoral  office  for 
the  ordering  and  governing  of  His  Church  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world.  This  I  take  to  be  so  clear  from  those  and  other 
texts,'  &c"  (Pp.  51,  52.) 

And  hence  his  Lordship  draws  the  conclusion,  that  Bishop  San- 

*  Eccl.  Pol.  vii.  14. 

t  True  UitFrrr-nce  between  Christian  Subjection  and  Unchristian  Rebellion.  Oxf.  15S5, 
4to.  pp.  261,  262. 
8 


34 


derson  "  thus  asserted  the  exclusive  power  of  bishops  to  ordain 
divino  jure."    (P.  52.) 

Now  if  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  had  been  put  on  his  trial  for  hold- 
ing such  a  doctrine  as  is  here  maintained,  it  would  have  been  quite 
fair  for  him  to  have  referred  to  these  words  of  Bishop  Sanderson 
in  his  defence.  But  when  he  is  arraigning  his  Metropolitan  and 
others  for  error  and  heresy  because  they  do  not  take  such  a  view, 
it  is  anything  but  fair  to  refer  to  Sanderson  as  he  has  done. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  Bishop  Sanderson  points  out  two  different 
senses  of  the  phrase  jus  divinum,  observing: — 

"Sometimes  it  importeth  a  Divine  precept  (which  is  indeed  the  primary  and 
most  proper  signification)  when  it  appeareth  by  some  clear  express  and 
peremptory  command  of  God  in  his  Word,  to  be  the  will  of  God  that  the 
thing  so  commanded  should  be  perpetually  and  universally  observed.  Of 
which  sort,  setting  aside  the  Articles  of  the  Creed,  and  the  moral  duties  of 
the  law  (which  are  not  much  pertinent  to  the  present  inquiry),  there  are,  as 
I  take  it,  very  few  things  that  can  be  said  to  be  of  Divine  positive  rigid  under 
the  New  Testament.  The  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  administration  of  the 
Sacraments  are  two ;  which,  when  I  have  named,  I  think  I  have  named  all.  But 
there  is  a  secondary  and  mure  extended  signification  of  that  term,  which  is 
also  of  frequent  use  among  divines.  In  which  sense  such  things  as,  having 
no  express  command  in  the  Word,  yet  are  found  to  have  authority  and  war- 
rant from  the  institution,  example,  and  approbation  either  of  Christ  himself 
or  his  Apostles;  and  have  (in  regard  of  the  importance  and  usefulness  of 
the  tilings  themselves)  been  held,  by  the  consentient  judgment  of  all  the 
Churches  of  Christ  in  the  primitive  and  succeeding  ages,  needful  to  be  con- 
tinued ;  such  things  I  say  are  (though  not  so  properly  as  the  former,  yet) 
usually  and  interpretative^  said  to  be  of  Divine  right.  Of  which  sort  I  take" the 
observation  of  the  Lord's  day,  the  ordering  the  keys,  the  distinction  of  pres- 
byters and  deacons,  and  some  other  things  (not  all  perhaps  of  equal  conse- 
quence) to  be.  Unto  Jus  Divinum  in  that  former  acception,  is  required  a 
Divine  precept ;  in  this  latter,  it  sufficeth  thereunto  that  a  thing  be  of  Apos- 
tolical institution  or  practice.  Which  ambiguity  is  the  more  to  be  heeded, 
for  that  the  observation  thereof  is  of  great  use  for  the  avoiding  of  sundry 
mistakes,  that  through  the  ignorance  or  neglect  thereof  daily  happen  to  the 
engaging  of  men  in  endless  disputes,  and  entangling  their  consciences  in 
unnecessary  scruples." 

And  having  thus  pointed  out  these  two  senses  of  the  term  Jus 
Divinum,  he  proceeds  to  show  in  what  manner  the  phrase  is  to  be 
applied  in  the  matter  of  Episcopacy.    And  he  says: — 

"  Now  that  the  government  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  by  bishops  is  of 
Divine  right  in  that  first  and  stricter  sense,  is  an  opinion  at  least  of  great 
probability,  and  such  as  may  more  easily  and  upon  better  grounds  be 
defended  than  confuted. .  .  .  Yet  because  it  is  both  inexpedient  to  maintain  a 
dispute  where  it  needs  not.  and  needless  to  contend  for  more,  where  less  will 
serve  the  turn  ;  I  find  that  our  divines  that  have  travailed  most  in  this 
argument,  where  they  purposely  treat  of  it,  do  rather  choose  to  stand  to  the 
tenure  of  Episcopacy  ex  Apostolica  designation,  than  to  hold  a  contest  upon 
the  title  of  Jus  Divinum,  no  necessity  requiring  the  same  to  be  done.  They 
therefore  that  so  speak  of  this  government  as  established  by  Divine  right, 
are  not  all  of  them  necessarily  so  to  be  understood,  as  if  they  meant  it  in 
that  first  and  stricter  one.  Sufficient  it  is  for  the  justification  of  the  Church 
of  England  in  the  constitution  and  government  thereof,  that  it  is  (as  certainly 
it  is)  of  Divine  right  in  the  latter  and  larger  signification  :  that  is  to  say, 
of  Apostolical  institution  and  approbation  ;  exercised  by  the  Apostles  them- 
selves, and  by  other  persons  in  their  times,  appointed  and  enabled  thereunto 
by  them,  according  to  the  will  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  virtue  of  the 
commission  they  had  received  from  him." 


35 


So  that  all  lie  ventures  to  say  in  favor  of  Episcopacy  being 
jure  divino  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  phrase — which  alone  would 
make  it  of  absolute  necessity — is  that  it  appears  to  him  to  be  "an 
opinion  at  least  of  great  probability;"  and  he  admits,  that  our 
divines  for  the  most  part  only  contend  for  the  apostolical  institu- 
tion of  Episcopacy. 

He  then  remarks,  that  this  latter  view  is  "a  part  of  the  esta- 
blished doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,"  (in  which  I  entirely 
agree  with  him,)  and  that  it  "hath  been  constantly  and  uniformly 
maintained  by  our  best  writers,  and  by  all  the  sober,  orderly,  and 
orthodox  sons  of  this  Church.  (Episcop.  not  prejud.  to  Reg. 
Power,  Lond.  1G73,  Sec.  II.  §§  3-6.) 

The  latter  is  a  somewhat  large  assertion,  but  no  doubt  true  of  a 
great  majority  of  such  divines.  But  then,  as  I  have  already  abund- 
antly shown,*  those  among  them  who  held  this  view  maintained 
also  the  validity  under  some  circumstances  of  Presbyterian  Ordi- 
nations. 

And  now,  with  respect  to  the  passage  quoted  by  the  Bishop 
of  Exeter  from  the  "  Postcript  "  to  this  work,  I  shall  merely  take 
the  liberty  of  giving  the  reader  the  previous  context.  Bishop 
Sanderson  says: — 

"Whereas  in  my  answer  to  the  former  of  the  two  objections  in  the  fore- 
going Treatise,  I  have  not  anywhere  made  any  clear  discovery  what  my  own 
particular  judgment  is  concerning  the  Jus  Divinum  of  Episcopacy  in  the 
stricter  sense,  either  in  the  affirmative  or  negative  ;  and  for  want  of  so  doing, 
may  perhaps  be  censured  by  some  to  have  walked  but  haltingly,  or  at  least- 
wise with  more  caution  and  mincing  than  became  me  to  do  in  a  business  of 
that  nature;  I  do  hereby  declare:  1.  That  to  avoid  the  starting  of  more  ques- 
tions than  needs  must,  I  then  thought  it  fitter  (and  am  of  the  same  opinion 
still)  to  decline  that  question,  than  to  determine  it  either  way;  such  determina- 
tion being  clearly  of  no  moment  at  all  to  my  purpose,  and  for  the  solving  of 
that  objection.  2.  That  nevertheless  (leaving  other  men  to  the  liberty  or 
their  own  judgments)  my  opinion  is,  that  Episcopal  government  is,"  &c. 
(as  follows  in  the  Bishop  of  Exeter's  extract.) 

Now  if  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  will  follow  Bishop  Sanderson's 
course  in  "  leaving  other  men  to  the  liberty  of  their  own  judgments," 
and  not  denounce  as  heretics  and  unfaithful  to  the  doctrine  of 
their  Church,  those  who  take  the  lower  of  the  two  views  mentioned 
by  Sanderson,  I  for  one  will  leave  him  to  follow  Sanderson,  with- 
out molestation,  in  taking  the  higher  view.  But  let  him  not  think 
to  avail  himself  of  the  authority  of  Sanderson  in  his  assault  upon 
his  Metropolitan  and  seven-tenths  at  least  of  the  clergy,  by  quot- 
ing scraps  from  him  which  only  show  half  his  mind. 

And  I  must  add,  with  respect  to  Bishop  Sanderson's  own  doc- 
trine, that  it  does  not  seem  to  have  prevented  his  recognizing  the 
Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches  as  true  Churches  of  Christ,  and 
therefore  their  ministers  as  true  ministers  of  Christ.  For  in  his 
brief  Discourse  concerning  the  Church,  he  has  a  chapter  entitled, 
"  Concerning  Protestant  Churches;"  and  he  defines  them  as  "those 

*  See  the  authorities  quoted  in  my  former  Tract,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
England  on  Nvn-Eiiiscoual  Ordinations. 


36 


visible  particular  churches,  which,  having  by  an  external  separation 
freed  themselves  from  the  tyranny  and  idolatry  of  Popery,  have 
more  or  less  reformed  the  doctrine  and  worship  from  Popish  cor- 
ruptions, and  restored  them  more  or  less  to  the  ancient  and 
primitive  purity  ;"  and  he  adds,  as  instances,  "  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, the  Church  of  Denmark,  the  Church  of  Saxony,"  &c.  {JJisc. 
cone,  the  Church,  Lond.  1688.  4to.  pp.  19,  20.) 

Whatever,  therefore,  might  be  Bishop  Sanderson's  view,  he  cer- 
tainly found  some  way  of  reconciling  it  with  the  notion  that  the 
Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches  were  true  Churches  of  Christ, 
and  therefore  their  ministers  true  ministers  of  Christ. 

The  Bishop  next  claims  the  authority  of  Pearson  in  his  favor. 
And  he  quotes  first  from  some  "  Theological  Determinations,"* 
designed  to  be  part  of  a  work  entitled,  Summa  Theologise  ex 
Sententia  Doctoris  in  Ecclesia  Anglicana  tradita  ;  and  which,  the 
Bishop  tells  us,  "is,  therefore,  his  deliberate  expression  of  what  he 
deemed  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  on  the  subjects  treated  therein." 
I  must  submit  that  the  words  of  the  title  are  by  no  means  so  exclu- 
sive, and  imply  no  more  than  doctrine  which  may  be  lawfully  main- 
tained in  the  Church  of  England.  These  "  Determinations"  are  in 
number  three,  and  entitled:  "I.  Ordo  Episcopalis  est  Apostolicus. 
II.  Ordinandi  potestas  solis  competit  Episcopis.  III.  Ordinatio 
Anglicana  complet  totam  Essentiam  externa  Yocationis  ad  Minis- 
terium." 

Now  it  is  quite  possible,  that  Pearson,  like  Sanderson,  may  have 
taken  the  highest  view  of  the  Jus  Divinum  of  Episcopacy  ;  and  I 
am  not  concerned  to  disprove  it;  but  I  hardly  think  that  the  "De- 
terminations" to  which  the  Bishop  here  refers  us  will  prove  it. 
And  for  this  reason  ;  that  they  lay  down  the  general  rule,  and  do  not 
touch  the  question,  whether  there  are  or  are  not  any  exceptional 
cases.  And  we  may  find  quite  as  strong  passages  as  occur  in 
these  "  Determinations,"  in  authors  who  nevertheless,  in  other 
parts  of  their  writings,  have  distinctly  admitted  the  validity,  under 
some  circumstances,  of  Presbyterian  Ordinations;  as,  for  instance, 
Archdeacon  Mason. 

The  Bishop's  remaining  citation  is  from  a  Letter  of  Bishop 
Pearson  against  the  allowance  of  "promiscuous  Ordinations"  in 
the  Church  of  England.!  The  matter,  therefore,  against  which  the 
Letter  is  directed,  is  very  different  from  that  now  under  discussion. 
For  it  would  no  doubt  be  very  undesirable  to  allow  such  Ordina- 
tions in  one  and  the  same  Church,  while  yet  Non-Episcopal  Ordi- 
nations might  be  valid  in  other  Churches. 

But  his  Lordship  will  say:  "Bead  what  he  says."  Let  us  do 
so;  and  first  let  us  take  his  Lordship's  citation,  which  is  this: — 

"That  the  order  of  the  ministry  is  necessary  to  the  continuation  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  promises  of  Christ,  as  it  was  to  the  first  plantation 
of  it  according  to  His  institution,  is  a  ductrine  indubitable.  That  this  minis- 
try is  derived  by  a  succession  and  constant  propagation,  and  that  the  unity 

*  Minor  Theological  Works  of  Bishop  Pearson.  Oxf.  IS J4,  vol.  i.  p.  £71,  et  seq. 
t  Minor  Theological  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  231. 


37 


and  peace  of  the  Church  of  Christ  are  to  be  conserved  by  a  due  and  legiti- 
mate ordination,  no  man  who  considereth  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  and 
Ecclesiastical  history  can  ever  doubt."  "  However,  in  the  peculiar  and  happy 
condition  of  our  Church,  these  promiscuous  ordinations,  if  at  all  allowed  by 
it,  are  most  destructive  to  that  which  is  the  safety  and  honor  of  it.  AVe 
have  the  greatest  felicity  which  could  happen  to  a  Reformation,  as  being 
regular  and  authoritative,"  &c.  &c. — the  Bishop  extending  his  quotation 
much  farther. 

But  here  I  paused  in  reading,  for  it  was  impossible  not  to  see  that 
something  was  omitted  where  the  inverted  commas  indicated  a  break 
in  the  quotation,  very  germane  to  the  question  under  discussion. 
It  was  tolerably  clear,  by  the  words,  "  However,  in  the  peculiar 
and  happy  condition  of  our  Church,"  &c,  that  some  concession  had 
been  made  representing  Churches  not  in  so  "peculiar  and  happy 
a  condition."  And  accordingly  I  found  there  the  following 
passage : — 

"  This  way  of  Ordination,  having  continued  so  many  ages  one 
and  the  same,  could  never  be  considerably  altered  without  some 
great  commotions  and  dissensions  in  the  Church,  and  the  manifest 
breach  of  union  and  communion  in  that  body;  whomsoever  we  judge 
guilty  of  the  breach  of  that  union;  which  is  not  necessary  now  to 
dispute.  And  as  the  first  introduction  of  different  ordinations 
caused  a  standing  and  settled  opposition,  precluding  all  ways  of 
reconciliation  ;  so  they  cannot  be  brought  into  any  one  Church, 
but  they  must  make  such  a  division  and  disparity  in  the  adminis- 
trations, as  will  amount  to  no  less  than  a  schism."  And  then  fol- 
lows the  remark  contrasting  with  what  is  here  alluded  to,  the  "pe- 
culiar and  happy  condition  of  our  Church,"  and  the  "felicity"  of 
our  Reformation  "  as  being  regular  and  authoritative." 

Now  this  allusion  to  the  Foreign  Protestant  Churches  is  not  that 
of  one  who  entirely  disowns  them  as  Churches,  but  rather  of  one 
who  considered  it  as  their  misfortune  that  their  reformation  was 
not  regular,  and  held  that  the  guilt  of  the  consequent  "  breach  of 
union  and  communion  "  might  not  rest  with  them.  This  remark, 
which  is  the  only  one  in  the  whole  Letter  directly  affecting  the 
point  in  question,  the  Bishop  has  omitted  in  his  extracts,  though 
he  has  cited  almost  the  whole  of  the  rest  of  the  Letter. 

His  Lordship  adds,  that  he  has  cited  these  testimonies  as  occur- 
ring, "  not  in  obiter  dicta,  but  in  works  written  on  the  very  subject 
of  Orders,"  and  consequently  worth  more  than  "  a  whole  Catena 
of  writers,  however  eminent,  who  are  treating  the  matter  either 
incidentally  and  aliud  agentes,  or  under  collateral  influences,  such 
as  a  desire  to  make  out  as  good  a  case  as  they  can  for  Foreign  Pro- 
testants among  whom  they  were  living;"  and  he  adds:  "  This  last 
remark  specially  applies  to  the  strongest  testimony  on  that  side 
with  which  I  am  acquainted,  Dr.  Cosins's  [Cosin's]  letter  to  Mr. 
Cordel  at  Blois,  dated  Paris,  Feb.  7,  1650."  (P.  56.) 

But,  in  the  first  place,  this  is  no  reply  to  such  testimonies  as 
have  been  brought  from  Saravia,  from  Archbishop  Whitgift,  from 
Dean  Field,  from  Archdeacon  Mason.  And  secondly,  whatever 
truth  there  is  in  the  general  proposition,  that  a  testimony  derived 


38 


from  a  work  written  expressly  on  the  subject  is  of  more  value  than 
an  obiter  dictum  respecting  it  in  a  work  on  a  subject,  this  observa- 
tion does  not  apply  to  the  casein  hand;  for  what  we  want  to  know 
is  the  opinion  of  our  divines,  not  on  the  general  question  of  the 
Scriptural  and  Apostolical  form  of  government  for  the  Church,  but 
on  certain  exceptional  eases,  and  whether  under  some  circum- 
stances that  form  of  government  may  not  be  lawfully  departed 
from.  And  we  see  in  the  case  of  Archdeacon  Mason,  that  a  work 
may  be  published  on  the  general  subject,  from  which  the  views  of 
the  author  on  exceptional  cases  cannot  be  judged,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, greatly  misapprehended.* 

To  attempt  to  get  rid  of  the  testimony  of  Bishop  Cosin,  given 
in  his  able  and  elaborate  letter  written  expressly  on  the  point  under 
discussion,  is,  of  course,  not  worth  one  word  in  the  way  of  refu- 
tation. It  simply  shows  the  utterly  impervious  character  of  the 
mind  that  indited  it  to  anything  that  it  does  not  wish  to  receive. 

What  follows  is  still  more  extraordinary.  For  the  Bishop 
adds : — 

"Yet  even  he  refers  the  question  [t.  c.  of  "communicating  with  them  of 
the  French  Church"]  ultimately  to  the  decision  of  our  own  Church:  which 
decision,  solemnly  given  by  Convocation  in  16G1,  and  afterwards  confirmed 
by  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  was,  we  know,  against  the  concession  here  made  ; 
yet  it  had  the  full  assent,  concurrence,  and  earnest  co-operation  of  Cosins 
[Cosinjf  himself."  (P.  56.) 

Now,  with  all  due  respect,  I  beg  to  say,  first,  that  Dr.  Cosin  did 
not  refer  the  question  to  the  decision  of  our  own  Church,  for  he 
merely  stated  his  "protestation  "  "  not  to  recede  in  anywise  from 
the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England,"  which 
renders  his  testimony  all  the  stronger ;  and  he  added,  that  there 
was  "no  prohibition  of  our  Church  against  it;"  and  secondly,  as 
the  reader  probably  well  knows,  there  was  no  subsequent  decision 
of  Convocation  in  1661,  or  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  "against  the 
concession  here  made."  And  I  suspect  his  Lordship  himself  would 
be  very  sorry  to  be  prosecutor  in  a  suit  against  one  who  had  chosen, 
when  abroad,  to  communicate  with  the  Non-Episcopal  Churches  of 
the  Continent. 

And  thus,  when  we  contrast  the  real  value  of  his  Lordship's 
statements  with  the  magisterial  and  imperious  tone  in  which  they 
are  delivered,  we  seek  in  vain  for  any  justification  of  his  Lordship's 
high  pretensions. 

So  ends  the  Bishop's  attempt  to  support  his  doctrine  from  the 
writings  of  our  divines.  And  whatever  may  be  the  opinion  of  the 
reader  as  to  the  views  of  his  Lordship's  referees,  I  must  again 
remind  him,  that  I  do  not  pretend  to  show  that  none  of  our  divines 
ever  held  the  doctrine  of  the  exclusive  lawfulness  of  Episcopal 
Ordination.  This  I  am  not  concerned  to  prove,  and  do  not  profess 
to  do  so.    And  if  the  Bishop  likes  to  maintain  such  a  view  without 

*  See  Doctrine,  fee,  pp.  37,  3S :  and  Reply  to  Churton  and  Harington,  p.  31. 
t  It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  the  very  name  of  this  learned  Bishop  seems  unknown 
to  his  Lordship. 


39 


arraigning  as  heretics  and  unfaithful  sons  of  our  Church  those 
■who  hold  a  contrary  opinion,  let  him  do  so.  Our  Church  has  not 
forbidden  the  view,  though  she  clearly  has  not  sanctioned  it  in  her 
Formularies  ;  and  her  23d  Article  implies  a  contrary  doctrine. 

But  when  the  Bishop  takes  the  ground  he  does,  he  is  bound  to 
show,  when  treating  of  the  testimonies  of  our  divines  on  the  sub- 
ject, that  there  is  not  that  testimony  in  favor  of  the  opposite  view 
in  their  writings  that  raises  a  good  argument  for  it  from  that 
source.  And  therefore  what  he  had  more  especially  to  do  was, 
not  to  adduce  two  or  three  supposed  testimonies  in  favor  of  his 
own  view  from  those  writings ;  but  to  show  that  the  host  of  testi- 
monies cited  for  the  opposite  view  were  incorrectly  cited,  and  that 
there  was  in  fact  no  weighty  evidence  of  that  kind  to  be  adduced 
in  its  behalf.  But,  instead  of  this,  he  has  passed  them  by,  with  the 
exception  of  Hooker  and  Cosin,  in  profound  silence ;  though  they 
were  brought  under  his  eye  in  the  very  Tract  he  here  criticizes. 
And  very  remarkable  it  is,  that  while  his  Lordship  has  thought  it 
worth  while  to  spend  several  pages  upon  my  few  remarks  on  the 
Formularies  of  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.  and  the  Scholastic  divines 
— which  were  introduced  as  but  indirectly  bearing  on  the  real 
question  at  issue — he  has  passed  over  without  the  slightest  notice 
all  but  two  of  the  direct  testimonies  I  have  cited,  showing  both  the 
doctrine  and  practice  of  the  greatest  divines  of  our  Church  from 
the  Reformation  to  the  present  day. 

Before  I  conclude,  I  shall  call  the  reader's  attention  to  a  brief 
recapitulation  of  the  authorities  which  the  Bishop  has  thus  passed 
by.  But,  previous  to  doing  so,  there  is  one  more  point  to  be 
noticed  in  the  Bishop's  Letter.  His  Lordship  has,  with  much 
reason,  conceived  it  necessary  to  offer  some  remarks,  before  he 
closed  his  argument,  on  the  55th  Canon  ;  which  had,  of  course, 
been  quoted  as  entirely  opposed  to  the  doctrine  he  is  attempting 
to  establish.  That  Canon,  passed  in  1603,  orders  the  clergy  to 
pray  for  "the  Church  of  Scotland;"  while  it  is  an  xindeniable 
fact,  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  had  then  no  bishops,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  word,  and  therefore  of  course  none  but  Pres- 
byterian Orders  at  the  best.  The  consequence  is  obvious,  namely, 
that  our  Church  did  not  then  consider  Episcopal  Orders  necessary 
under  all  circumstances  to  constitute  a  valid  ministry. 

The  particulars  of  the  case  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  at  this 
period  1  have  so  fully  stated  in  a  recent  publication,*  that  I  do 
not  here  repeat  them. 

To  the  overthrow  of  this  obvious  and  necessary  conclusion,  his 
Lordship  has  devoted  six  pages.  With  what  success  may  easily 
be  foreseen. 

He  commences  with  the  following  very  remarkable  observa- 
tion : — 

"  What  was  the  exact  position  of  the  Presbyterian  government  in  Scotland 


*  Reply  to  Archdeacon  Churton  and  Chancellor  Harington. 


40 


according  to  law  in  1003,  I  confess  myself  unahle  to  ascertain  without  more  of 
labor  than  the  point  itself  would  seem  to  be  worth.  The  ecclesiastical  history 
of  that  country  at  that  period  is  so  full  of  intricacy  as  to  baffle  ordinary 
research.  1  think  it  very  likely  that  the  English  Convocation  in  1603  was 
itself  scarcely  better  informed  on  this  point  than  we  are,"  &c.  (P.  57.) 

With  this  amount  of  information  on  the  subject,  his  Lordship 
thinks  himself  justified  in  dogmatically  determining — after  quoting 
some  passionate  exclamations  of  James  I.  against  Presbyterianism, 
and  such  like  fruitless  evidence — that  the  notion  that  the  Kirk  of 
Scotland,  as  it  then  existed  (and  which  was  the  only  visible  Church 
of  Scotland  in  existence),  "should  be  'the  very  Church  of  Scot- 
land' designated  by  the  Canon  as  the  object  of  our  prayers,  is  too 
gross  for  an  ordinary  understanding  to  digest.  (P.  58.) 

Whether  this  mode  of  settling  the  matter  by  one  who  confesses 
his  ignorance  of  the  data  upon  which  any  sound  conclusion  must  be 
grounded,  will  be  satisfactory  to  his  Lordship's  adherents,  I  know 
not.    But  certainly  with  any  others  it  must  be  utterly  worthless. 

The  Bishop  perhaps  thinks  so  himself,  for  he  adds  some  argu- 
ments on  the  subject;  and  the  first  is  this: — 

"That  the  Church  which  is  really  intended  in  the  Canon," 
says  the  Bishop,  "  must  be  in  communion  with  that  which  thus 
recognizes  it  in  her  prayers  to  be  a  Church,  I  need  not  say." 
(Pp.  58,  59.) 

So  that  the  Church  of  England,  according  to  the  Bishop,  recog- 
nizes no  Christian  community  to  be  a  Church  but  those  that  are 
in  communion  with  her !  When,  therefore,  we  pray  for  the 
Catholic  Church,  we  mean  the  Church  of  England  and  that  por- 
tion of  the  Christian  world  that  is  in  communion  with  her ! 

And  then  follows  another  still  more  remarkable  specimen  of  his 
Lordship's  mode  of  reasoning,  addressed  to  the  "soberer  portion" 
of  those  who  differ  from  him  in  this  matter.  His  Lordship  com- 
mences with  a  formal  proof  that  the  "  realm  of  Scotland"  is  in- 
cluded in  the  terms  used  in  the  1st,  36th,  and  55th  Canons  to 
describe  the  countries  over  which  King  James  ruled,  which  might 
have  been  readily  granted.  But  in  those  Canons  the  king  is 
described  (to  quote  the  words  of  the  last)  as  "  supreme  governor 
in  these  his  realms,  over  all  persons,  in  all  causes  ecclesiastical  as 
well  as  temporal."  Now  for  the  consequence.  "  Therefore," 
writes  his  Lordship,  "  Mr.  Macaulay,  and  all  who  may  have 
availed  themselves  of  the  ingenious  suggestion,  that  the  '  Church 
of  Scotland  was  in  1(508,  as  now,  Presbyterian,'  must  be  prepared 
to  accept,  as  a  corollary,  that  the  Queen's  Majesty  is  supreme  in  all 
causes  ecclesiastical  or  spiritual  within  the  limits  of  the '  Holy  Kirk.' " 
So  that  because  the  Church  of  England  chose  to  recognize  King 
James,  in  10G3,  as  supreme  governor  in  all  causes  ecclesiastical 
throughout  his  dominions ;  therefore,  if  the  Church  of  Scotland 
(which  did  not  do  so)  was  then,  as  now,  Presbyterian,  the  Queen 
is  now  de  facto  supreme  in  all  causes  ecclesiastical  in  the  present 
Scotch  Presbyterian  Church.  To  state  such  an  argument  is  to 
refute  it. 


41 


I  need  hardly  observe,  that  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Church 
of  England  of  her  own  doctrine  on  the  subject  (and  the  Canon  of 
course  is  nothing  more)  affords  no  proof  of  the  estate  or  views  of 
other  communions  in  the  King's  dominions.  And  certainly  it 
could  not  make  a  communion  Episcopal  that  had  no  true  bishops 
belonging  to  it.  In  fact,  it  does  not  touch  the  question,  whether 
the  Church  of  Scotland  was  Presbyterian  or  Episcopal;  for  it  might 
ha  ve  been  the  latter,  and  yet  not  have  recognized  the  Royal  Supre- 
macy as  our  Canons  do,  as  is  the  case  with  the  present  Episcopal 
Church  in  Scotland.  And  the  existence  of  this  Church  in  Scot- 
land, and  even  of  the  present  Romish  hierarchy  in  England,  does 
not  make  it  necessary  for  us  to  make  the  slightest  alteration  in 
the  Canons. 

The  Bishop  is,  in  fact,  refuted  by  his  own  statements.  For  he 
contends  that  our  Church  is  now  in  communion  with  the  Episcopal 
Church  existing  in  Scotland,  which  he  calls  the  "  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church  of  Scotland."  Whether  we  are  or  not,  I  shall 
not  now  dispute  ;  but,  by  his  own  showing,  our  acknowledgment  of 
the  Royal  Supremacy  does  not  prevent  our  recognizing  as  "  the 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  of  Scotland''  a  Church  that  does 
not  thus  acknowledge  it. 

But,  adds  his  Lordship  (p.  61):  Do  not  accuse  me  of  being  so 
uncharitable  as  to  exclude  such  communities  from  the  benefit  of  my 
prayers.  I  will  pray  for  them  as  much  as  you  please,  but  not 
as  "a  Branch  of  the  Church  of  Christ."  "To  pray  for  it  [the 
Scotch  Presbyterian  "community"]  as  such,  would  be  in  truth  to 
pray  for  the  destruction  of  our  own  Church,  for  it  is  the  avowed 
principle  of  that  Presbyterian  body  to  labor  to  that  end."  (P.  61.) 
"I  will  pray  for  them  among 'our  enemies,  persecutors,  and 
slanderers,  and  that  it  may  please  God  to  turn  their  hearts  ;'  but  I 
will  not  pray  for  them  AS  A  RELIGIOUS  body — still  less  as  a 
Church — least  of  all  as  the  Church  of  Scotland,"  &c.  (P.  62.) 

And  is  it  really  so  hard  a  task  to  his  Lordship's  Christian  charity 
to  recognize  as  a  Church,  or  even  as  a  religious  body,  those  who  are 
attacking  our  form  of  church  government  and  endeavoring  to 
propagate  their  own? — so  impossible  a  matter  to  own  as  a  Christ- 
ian brother  one  who  thinks  us  in  error  on  such  a  point,  and  per- 
haps in  the  warmth  of  his  feelings  gives  us  some  very  hard  names  ? 
I  will  only  say,  that  I  trust  there  are  many  among  us  who  do  not 
sympathize  with  his  Lordship  in  such  feelings. 

But  of  one  thing  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  will  allow  me  to  remind 
him  ;  namely,  that  if  such  are  his  views,  then  d  fortiori  the  Romish 
"  community"  must  not  be  recognized  in  our  prayers  as  "  a  Branch 
of  the  Church  of  Christ;"  a  consequence  which,  I  suspect,  his 
Lordship  has  forgotten. 

In  connection  with  this  subject  the  Bishop  finds  it  convenient 
to  mention  what,  in  the  part  where  he  ought  to  have  specially 
taken  it  into  account,  he  altogether  passed  over  in  silence  ;  namely, 
that  at  the  Restoration,  in  1661,  "  this  important  addition  was 
made"  in  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal :  "  or  hath  had  formerly 


42 


Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination,"  (p.  63,)  which  he  calls  a 
"  decision  of  our  Church"  on  "  the  indispensable  necessity  of 
Episcopal  ordination  ;  but  which,  I  need  not  remind  the  reader, 
applies  only  to  our  own  Church. 

And  finally  he  observes,  that  "the  persons  designated  for 
bishops"  in  Scotland,  "though  they  struggled  hard  to  assert  the 
reality  of  their  Presbyterian  Orders,  were  required,  as  an  indis- 
pensable condition  before  their  consecration,  to  be  first  ordained 
deacons  and  priests,  because  they  were  'mere  laymen;'  and  this 
notwithstanding  the  precedent  of  1610,  when  James's  bishops  elect 
were  consecrated  at  once,"  (p.  64:)  which  is  quite  true,  but  which 
the  following  account  of  the  matter  by  Bishop  Burnet,  the  familiar 
friend  of  Leighton,  who  was  one  of  them,  will  show  to  be  quite 
insufficient  for  the  Bishop's  purpose  : — 

"When  the  time  fixed  for  the  consecration  of  the  bishops  of  Scotland  came 
on,  the  English  bishops  finding  that  Sharp  and  Leighton  had  not  Episcopal 
ordination,  as  priests  and  deacons,  the  other  two  having  been  ordained  by 
bishops  before  the  wars,  they  stood  upon  it,  that  they  must  be  ordained,  first 
deacons  and  then  priests.  Sharp  was  very  uneasy  at  this,  and  remembered 
them  of  what  had  happened  when  King  James  had  set  vp  Episcopacy.  Bishop 
Andrews  moved  at  that  time  the  ordaining  them,  as  was  now  proposed  :  but 
that  was  overruled  by  King  James,  who  thought  it  went  too  far  towards  the 
unchurching  of  all  those  who  had  no  bishops  among  them.  But  the  late  war, 
and  the  disputes  during  that  time,  had  raised  these  controversies  higher,  and 
brought  men  to  stricter  notions,  and  to  maintain  them  with  more  fierceness. 
The  English  bishops  did  also  say,  that  by  the  late  Act  of  Uniformity  that 
matter  was  more  positively  settled  than  it  had  been  before  ;  so  that  they  could 
not  legally  consecrate  any  but  those  who  were,  according  to  that  constitution, 
made  first  priests  and  deacons.  They  also  made  this  difference  between  the 
present  time  and  King  James's :  for  then  the  Scots  were  only  in  an  imper  fect 

State,  HAVING  NEVER  HAD  BISHOPS  AMONG   THEM  SINCE  THE  REFORMATION  ;  SO  in 

such  a  state  of  things,  in  which  they  had  been  under  a  real  necessity,  it  was 
reasonable  to  ALi.ow  of  TnEiR  Orders,  how  defective  soccer ;  but  that  of  late 
they  had  been  in  a  state  of  schism,  had  revolted  from  their  bishops,  and  had 
thrown  off  that  order:  so  that  Orders  given  in  such  a  wilful  opposition  to  the 
whole  constitution  of  the  primitive  Church  was  a  thing  of  another  nature." 
[Burnet's  Hist,  of  his  Own  Times,  i.  139,  140.) 

From  this  passage  two  important  conclusions  follow  :  first,  that 
these  bishops  fully  recognized  the  fact,  that  the  validity  of  the 
Orders  of  those  consecrated  in  1610  was  admitted  by  the  bishops 
who  consecrated  them;  and  secondly,  that  these  bishops  held  that 
there  was  good  ground  for  so  doing.  I  commend  this  to  Chan- 
cellor Harington's  consideration. 

To  the  remarks  on  the  Address  of  "  the  Devon  and  Cornwall 
Church  of  England  Protestant  Association"  and  the  Archbishop's 
Answer  (pp.  64,  65),  I  shall  merely  say,  that  no  such  conclusion 
follows  from  the  Archbishop's  answer  as  the  Bishop  has  deduced 
from  it ;  namely,  that  the  Archbishop  has  made  "  Orders  depend 
on  the  soundness  or  unsoundness  of  the  doctrines  held  by  the 
persons  whose  Orders  are  in  question."  This  is  so  obvious  to  any 
impartial  reader,  that  I  shall  not  waste  words  upon  it.  And  with 
this  charge  his  very  characteristic  attack  upon  the  Archbishop  for 


43 


an  "ultra-Protestantism"  "  closely  allied  to  Popery,"  falls  to  the 
ground. 

The  Bishop  is  very  anxious  that  His  Grace  should  enter  into 
a  discussion  with  him  as  to  what  is  "the  authority  necessary  to 
confer  Holy  Orders."  (Pp.  65,  66.)  I  suppose  His  Grace,  if  he 
thought  any  reply  necessary,  would  refer  his  Lordship  to  the  Arti- 
cles of  our  Church,  where  he  will  find  an  answer  to  his  question. 

To  his  Lordship's  inquiry,  what  the  ministers  of  the  Foreign 
Non-Episcopal  Churches  are  to  be  considered,  as  he  fears  they 
may  be  "an  order  unknown  to  Scripture,"  I  think  his  anxiety  on 
that  head  maybe  at  once  relieved,  by  informing  him,  that  they  are 
evidently  intended  to  correspond  with  the  presbyters  of  whom  we 
read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

The  Bishop  here  repeats  the  inference  from  the  words  in  the 
Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  to  which  I  have  already  replied.*  But  he 
adds,  that  "even  if,  for  any  special  reasons  of  a  local  or  temporary 
kind,"  in  the  case  of  foreigners  a  "prohibition  of  'Bishops,  Priests, 
or  Deacons,'  to  execute  any  of  the  said  [i.  e.  ministerial]  functions 
within  our  Church  be  in  any  way  justifiable,  yet  the  absolute 
refusal  to  recognize  them  as  ministers  in  the  Church  of  Christ, 
would  be  an  act  so  grossly  schismatical,  that  no  man  of  Catholic 
principles  would  know  how  to  justify  his  continuing  to  communi- 
cate in  the  Church  which  is  guilty  of  it."  (P.  67.)  I  reply, 
perhaps  it  would  ;  and  I  am  glad  to  know,  that  our  own  Church 
docs  nothing  of  the  kind,  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  clearly  in  her 
Articles  extended  the  limits  of  a  valid  ministry  beyond  that  which 
is  constituted  precisely  according  to  her  own  rules,  and  by  an 
overwhelming  majority  of  her  divines  for  a  long  period  after 
the  Reformation  has  directly  recognized  the  validity  of  the  Orders 
of  various  Non-Episcopal  Churches.  But  it  seems  to  me,  that  a 
tvorse  case  than  that  of  a  Church  refusing  to  recognize  such  persons 
as  "  ministers  in  the  Church  of  Christ,"  is  that  of  one  who,  while 
bearing  office  in  a  Church  that  does  not  refuse  such  recognition, 
not  only  refuses,  but  reviles  his  Metropolitan  for  taking  a  different 
course — not  only  "himself  refuses  to  receive  the  brethren,  but 
forbiddeth  them  that  would,  and  casteth  them  out  of  the  Church." 

Thus  ends  his  Lordship's  argument  drawn  from  the  Formu- 
laries and  divines  of  our  Church  on  the  subject  before  us  ;  the 
remainder  of  the  pamphlet  being  devoted  to  remarks  upon  the 
present  state  of  the  Protestant  Continental  Churches,  and  the 
individuals  who  recently  came  over  to  this  country  from  them. 

I  shall  here,  therefore,  take  the  opportunity  of  briefly  recapitu- 
lating the  authorities  I  have  before  adduced  on  this  subject,  making 
some  occasional  additions  to  them  as  I  proceed. 

Thus — not  to  notice  the  period  of  Edward  VI.,  for  which  I 
have  already  given  sufficient  testimonies! — we  have  for  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth,  when  our  Articles  and  Formularies  were  settled  as 


*  See  p.  15  above. 


t  See  p.  31  above. 


44 


they  now  (with  few  exceptions)  stand,  Dr.  Alley,  bishop  of  Exeter, 
in  1560,  Dr.  Pilkington,  bishop  of  Durham  in  15<>3,  and  the 
learned  Dr.  Whitaker,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Cambridge, 
at  the  close  of  the  century — all  testifying  to  the  parity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters  as  to  their  order,  and  the  superiority  of  bishops  in 
respect  of  office  being  only  due  to  human  appointment  ;*  we  have 
Bishop  Jewel  taking  similar  ground,  and,  moreover,  testifying 
strongly  to  the  necessity  of  bishops  to  constitute  a  Church  ;f  we  have 
Archbishop  Whitgift  distinctly  maintaining  that  a  presbyter  and 
bishop  are  one  "quoad  ministeriurn,"  and  that  the  Scriptures  do 
not  "set  down  any  one  certain  form  and  kind  of  government  of 
the  Church  to  be  perpetual  for  all  times,  persons,  and  places,  with- 
out alteration  ;"  and  that  he  does  not  "  condemn  any  churches  " 
where  the  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government  "  is  lawfully 
and  without  danger  received:"!  we  have  Hooker  testifying,  as 
already  stated  :§  we  have  the  High-Churchman  Saravia  expressly 
affirming  the  validity  of  the  Orders  of  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal 
Churches,  and  their  right  to  act  independently  of  other  churches 
in  the  matter  of  Orders  :||  and  Archbishop  Whitgift  assured  Beza 
that  "  the  purpose  of  Dr.  Saravia  to  assert  degrees  among  the 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  was  wholly  undertaken  without  the  injury 
or  prejudice  of  any  particular  Church  :"^f  we  have  Bishop  Bridges 
saying,  in  1587,  that  the  form  of  Ecclesiastical  government  may  be 
varied,  and  that  "  we  ought  neither  to  condemn,  nor  speak,  nor  think 
evil  of  other  good  churches  that  use  another  Ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment than  we  do  :"**  we  have  Bishop  Cooper,  one  of  the  leading 
defenders  of  our  Church  against  the  Puritans,  asserting  In  1589 
that  "  one  form  of  church  government  is  not  necessary  in  all  times 
and  places  of  the  Church  ;"  and  that  he  "  doubted  not,"  that  "  all 
those  Churches  in  which  the  Gospel  in  those  days,  after  great 
darkness,  was  first  renewed,  and  the  learned  men  whom  God  sent 
to  instruct  them,"  had  "been  directed  by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  re- 
tain this  liberty,  that  in  external  government  and  other  outward 
orders,  they  might  choose  such  as  they  thought  in  wisdom  and  god- 
liness to  be  most  convenient  for  the  state  of  their  country  and  dis- 
position of  the  people  :"ft  and  we  nave  the  learned  Dean  of  the 
Arches,  Dr.  Cosin,  in  1584,  laying  it  down,  in  express  defence  of 
the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches,  that  it  "  cannot  be  proved,  that 
any  set  and  exact  particular  form  "  of  church  polity  "is  recom- 
mended unto  us  by  the  word  of  God."|J 

This  was  the  ground  they  took  against  the  Puritans,  who  in- 
sisted upon  the  exclusive  divine  right  of  the  Presbyterian  form  of 
church  government.  And  instead. of  meeting  this  by  a  counter- 
claim of  a  similar  kind,  as  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  would  do,  they 

*  See  Doct.  of  Ch.  of  Engl.  &c.  pp.  17, 18,  20. 

t  lb.  p.  18.  t  lb.  pp.  19,  20. 

§  See  pp.  32,  33  above,  and  ib.  pp.  20,  21.  II  lb.  pp.  21,  22. 

«T  Strype'e  Whitgift,  p.  405.  **  Doctrine,  &c.  p.  22. 

tt  Doctrine,  &c.  pp.  23,  24. 

tt  Ib.  p.  24.  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  my  former  Tract  for  the  full  citation  of  these 
passages,  from  which  alone  he  can  see  their  real  force. 


45 


protested  against  such  a  notion  as  totally  unwarranted  by  Holy 
Scripture. 

And  for  their  practical  treatment  of  the  ministers  of  the  Foreign 
Non-Episcopal  Churches,  we  find  Archbishops  Parker,  Grindal, 
and  Sandys,  Bishops  Jewel,  Parkhurst,  Cox,  Horn  (to  mention  no 
others),  writing  to  the  ministers  of  those  Churches  as  acknowledged 
and  valued  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Christ;*  and  Archbishop 
Whitgift  writing  to  Beza  as  "  his  most  dear  brother  in  Christ,"  and 
superscribing  his  letter  to  "his  most  dear  brother  and  colleague  in 
Christ,  and  faithful  pastor  of  the  Genevan  Church. "f 

And  against  all  these  testimonies,  the  only  shadow  of  an  opposite 
testimony  that  can  be  brought  for  this  period  is  that  from  Bishop 
Bilson,  which  I  have  already  considered.! 

Then,  for  the  practice  of  our  Church  we  have  various  testi- 
monies, showing  that,  by  at  least  the  great  majority  of  our  bishops, 
persons  having  only  Presbyterian  Orders  were  admitted  to  the 
cure  of  souls  in  our  Church,  until  the  period  of  the  Restoration, 
without  any  fresh  ordination. §  I  have  before  mentioned  the  case 
of  Morrison,  who  had  only  Scotch  Presbyterian  Orders,  but  was 
licensed  by  Archbishop  Grindal  to  minister  the  word  and  sacra- 
ments throughout  the  Province  of  Canterbury  without  any  fresh 
ordination  ;  and  have  given  the  testimonies  of  Bishop  Cosin  (who, 
having  been  librarian  to  Overall,  and  chaplain  to  Neyle,  is  a  most 
unexceptionable  witness),  and  of  Bishop  Fleetwood,  showing  that 
it  was  not  the  custom  of  our  bishops,  previous  to  the  Restoration, 
to  reordain  those  who  had  only  Presbyterian  Orders,  when  they 
admitted  them  to  cures  in  this  country. || 

The  same  testimony  is  borne  by  Bishop  Burnet,  who  says: — 

"  Another  point  was  fixed  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  which  was  more  at 
large  formerly  :  those  who  came  to  England  from  the  Foreign  Churches  had 
not  been  required  tu  be  ordained  among  vs :  but  now  all,  that  had  not  Episco- 
pal ordination,  were  made  incapable  of  holding  any  Ecclesiastical  benefice." 
(Hist,  of  his  Own  Times,  vol.  i.  p.  183.) 

And  even  Mr.  Keble  confesses  that,  "  nearly  up  to  the  time 
when  Hooker  wrote,  numbers  had  been  admitted  to  the  ministry 
of  the  Church  in  England,  with  no  better  than  Presbyterian  Ordi- 
nation :  and  it  appears  by  Travers's  Supplication  to  the  Council, 
that  such  was  the  construction  not  uncommonly  put  upon  the 
Statute  of  the  13th  of  Elizabeth,  permitting  those  who  had  re- 
ceived Orders  in  any  other  form  than  that  of  the  English  Service- 
Book,  on  giving  certain  securities,  to  exercise  their  calling  in 
England."  [Pref.  to  Hooker,  p.  lxxvi.) 

Even  since  the  Restoration,  the  ministrations  of  those  who  had 
only  Presbyterian  Orders  were  for  a  long  course  of  years,  up  to 
nearly  the  present  time,  habitually  used  by  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  under  the  special  direction  of 
the  Bench  of  Bishops. *{ 

*  See  Zurich  Letters,  published  by  Parker  Society,  passim. 
f  Strype's  Whitgift,  406,  -40S  j  or  Ox.  ed.  ii.  159,  173. 

t  See  p.  33,  above.  $  See  Doctrine,  &c.  p.  29. 

II  See  Doctrine,  &c.  pp.  29,  30.  1  lb.  p.  31. 


4G 


And  I  will  now  add  another  case,  that  has  lately  been  under 
my  notice,  that  of  Dr.  De  Laune,  which  is  given  in  Dr.  Birch's 
Life  (if  Archbishop  Tillotson,  from  a  letter  of  Bishop  Cosin,  a  wit- 
ness of  the  case,  in  the  following  terms : — 

"Dr.  De  Laune,  who  translated  the  English  Liturgy  into  French,  being 
collated  to  a  living,  and  coming  to  the  Bishop,  then  at  Norwich,  with  his 
presentation,  his  Lordship  asked  him  where  lie  had  his  Orders.  He  answered, 
that  he  was  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  at  Leyden.  The  Bishop  upon  this 
•advised  him  to  take  the  opinion  of  counsel,  whether  by  the  laws  of  England 
he  was  capable  of  a  benefice  without  being  ordained  by  a  bishop.  The  doctor 
replied,  that  he  thought  his  Lordship  would  be  unwilling  to  reordain  him,  if 
his  counsel  should  say,  that  he  was  not  otherwise  capable  of  the  living  by  law. 
The  Bishop  rejoined:  '  Keordination  we  must  not  admit,  no  more  than  a 
rebaptizatioii  ;  but  in  case  you  find  it  doubtful  whether  you  be  a  priest  capable 
to  reccice  a  benefice  among  us,  or  no,  1  will  do  the  same  office  for  you,  if  you 
desire  it,  that  1  should  do  for  one  who  doubts  of  his  baptism,  when  all  things 
belonging  essentially  unto  it  have  not  been  duly  observed  in  the  administra- 
tion of  it,  according  to  the  rule  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  If  thou  beesl 
not  already,  &c.  Yet  for  mine  own  part,  if  you  will  adventure  the 
Orders  that  you  have,  I  will  admit  your  presentation,  and  give  you 
institution  into  the  living  howsoever.'  But  the  title,  which  this  pre- 
sentation had  from  the  patron,  proving  not  good,  there  were  do  farther  pro- 
ceedings in  it;  yet  afterwards  Dr.  De  Laune  was  admitted  into  another 
benefice  without  any  new  ordination."  (Birch's  Life  of  Archbishop  Til- 
lotson, 2d  ed.  1753,  pp.  170,  171.) 

And  the  only  one  of  our  early  divines,  of  any  weight,  whom  I 
can  find  to  have  denied  the  legality  of  the  practice,  and  that  only 
on  account  of  "the  laws  of  the  realm,"  is  Archbishop  Whitgift. 

And  that  the  statute  and  not  the  ecclesiastical  law  was  the  diffi- 
culty, where  any  was  felt,  we  learn  from  a  passage  in  Bishop  Hall, 
who  expressly  tells  us,  in  a  work  published  in  10-41: — 

"  The  sticking  at  the  admission  of  our  brethren  returning  from  Reformed 
Churches,  was  not  in  case  of  Ordination,  but  of  Institution:  they  had 
been  acknowledged  ministers  of  Christ,  without  any  other  hands  laid 
upon  them  :  but,  according  to  the  laics  of  our  land,  they  were  not  perhaps 
capable  of  Institution  to  a  benefice,  unless  they  were  so  qualified  as  the 
Statutes  of  this  realm  do  require.  And,  secondly,  I  know  those,  mere  than  one, 
that  by  virtue  only  of  that  ordination  which  they  have  brought  with  them  from 
other  Reformed  Churches,  have  enjoyed  spiritual  promotions  and  livings;  wiTnouT 
any  exception  against  TnE  lawfulness  of  their  calling."  (Bishop  Hall's 
Defence  of  the  Humble  Remonstrance,  Sect.  14,  Works,  ed.  Pratt,  vol.  9,  pp. 
690,  691.) 

Now  this  practice  of  our  Church  from  the  Reformation  to  the 
Restoration,  is  the  strongest  possible  proof  that  at  least  there  was 
nothing  in  our  Church's  Formularies  against  the  validity  of  such 
Orders,  but  on  the  contrary  enough  in  its  favor  to  justify  such  a 
course.  And  if  so,  a  fortiori,  our  Church  admitted  their  validity 
for  ministering  in  their  oivn  communions.  And  it  cannot  be  pre- 
tended, that  while  the  Articles  of  our  Church  remained  the  same, 
any  alteration  was  made  in  her  doctrine  on  this  subject  by  the 
mere  introduction,  at  the  Restoration,  of  the  regulation  requiring 
Episcopal  Orders  for  those  who  ministered  in  our  Church. 

In  considering  the  views  of  our  divines  subsequent  to  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth,  we  shall  no  doubt  find  some  discrepancy  of  opinion 
among  them  on  this  subject.    But  still,  we  have  an  overwhelming 


47 


majority  in  favor  of  the  same  view  of  the  matter  that  prevailed 
before.  It  has  been  with  some  reason  supposed  that  one  of  the 
first,  if  not  the  very  first,  to  question  the  validity  of  the  Orders 
of  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches,  was  Laud.  Certainly  so 
early  as  1604  he  maintained  this  ground  in  the  Divinity  School  at 
Oxford.  When  proceeding  in  that  year  to  his  degree  of  B.D., 
"  his  Supposition,  when  he  answered  in  the  Divinity  Schools  for  his 
degree,  concerning  the  efficacy  of  Baptism,  was  taken  verbatim  out 
of  Bellarmine ;  and  he  then  maintained,  there  could  be  no  true 
Church  without  diocesan  bishops,  for  which  Dr.  Holland,  then 
Doctor  of  the  Chair  [Regius  Professor  of  Divinity],  openly  repre- 
hended him  in  the  Schools  for  a  seditious  person,  who  would  un- 
church the  Reformed  Protestant  Churches  beyond  seas,  and  now 
sow  division  between  us  and  them,  who  were  brethren,  by  this 
novel  Popish  position."  (Pnjnne's  Life  of  Laud,  p.  2.)  And  this 
is  confirmed  by  Ileylin  himself,  who  says :  "  for  which  last  [i.  e. 
his  position  as  to  the  necessity  of  bishops]  he  was  shrewdly  rattled 
by  Dr.  Holland  above  mentioned,  as  one  that  did  endeavor  to  cast 
a  bone  of  discord  betwixt  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Reformed 
Churches  beyond  the  seas."    (Heylins  Life  of  Laud,  sub  a.  1604.) 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  that  the  Popish  doctrine  of  Bap- 
tism, and  the  indispensable  necessity  of  the  Episcopate  to  the 
existence  of  a  true  Church — the  two  doctrines  for  which  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter  has  been  so  vehemently  contending  against  his 
Metropolitan — should  be  the  two  principles  with  which  Laud  began 
his  career.  And  I  think  we  may  derive  instruction  from  the  way 
in  which  an  impartial  investigator  of  our  history  at  this  period, 
our  able  historian  Mr.  Hallam,  speaks  of  the  reintroduction  of 
the  latter  principle  into  our  Church  by  Laud  and  his  party  : — 

"The  system,"  he  says,  "pursued  by  Bancroft  and  his  imitators,  Bishops 
Neyle  and  Laud,  with  tiie  approbation  of  the  king,  far  opposed  to  the  healing 
counsels  of  Burleigh  and  Bacon,  was  just  such  as  low-born  and  little-minded 
men,  raised  to  power  by  fortune's  caprice,  are  ever  found  to  pursue.  They 
studiously  aggravated  every  difference,  and  irritated  every  wound.  .  .  .They 
began  by  preaching  the  divine  right,  as  it  is  called,  or  absolute  indispensability, 
of  Episcopacy ;  a  doctrine  of  which  the  first  traces,  as  I  apprehend,  are  found  about 
the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign.  They  insisted  on  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  suc- 
cession regularly  derived  from  the  Apostles.  They  drew  an  inference  from 
this  tenet,  that  ordinations  by  presbyters  were  in  all  cases  null.  And  as  this 
affected  all  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Europe,  except  their  own,  the  Lutherans 
not  having  preserved  the  succession  of  their  bishops,  while  the  Calvinists 
had  altogether  abolished  that  order,  they  began  to  speak  of  them,  not  as  breth- 
ren of  the  same  faith,  united  in  the  same  cause,  and  distinguished  only  by 
differences  little  more  material  than  those  of  political  commonwealths  (which 

HAD  BEEN'  TIIE  LANGUAGE  OF  TIIE  ClI  URCIT  OF  ENGLAND  EVER  SINCE  THE  REFORMA- 
TION ) ,  but  as  aliens  to  whom  they  were  not  at  all  related,  and  schismatics  with 
whom  they  held  no  communion  ;  nay,  as  wanting  the  very  essence  of  a  Christ- 
ian society.  This  again  brought  them  nearer,  by  irresistible  consequence,  to 
the  disciples  of  Rome,  whom,  wltli  becoming  charity,  but  against  the  received 
creed  of  the  Puritans,  and  perhaps  against  their  own  Articles,  they  all  ac- 
knowledged to  be  a  part  of  the  Catholic  Church,  while  they  were  withhold- 
ing that  appellation,  expressly  or  by  inference,  from  Heidelberg  and  Geneva." 
(Ilallam's  Constit.  Mist.  vol.  i.  pp.  SS'J,  3'J0,  4th  ed.) 

Mr.  Ilallam's  opinion  of  the  first  introduction  of  this  notion  at 


48 


the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign,,  is  taken  from  the  passage  of  Lord 
Bacon,  which  I  before  quoted  on  this  subject  ;*  in  which  he  speaks 
ot  'some  indiscreet  persons"  having  been  so  "bold"  as  to  pro- 
nounce those  "  ordained  in  foreign  parts"  to  be  "  no  lawful  min- 
isters." 

And  I  have  already  shown  that  the  more  eminent  of  those  who 
leaned  to  this  new  school,  such  as  Bishop  Andrews  and  Archbishop 
Bramhall,  were  far  from  condemning  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal 
communities  as  wanting  in  the  essentials  of  a  Church,  or  the  Orders 
of  their  ministers  as  absolutely  invalid.f 

In  the  same  place,  I  have  added  copious  testimonies  of  the  views 
of  Archbishops  Bancroft,  Usher,  Sancroft,  Wake,  Seeker  and 
Howley,  Bishops  Hall,  Davenant,  Morton,  George  Downham  Cosin 
and  Tomhne,  Lord  Bacon,  Dean  Field,  and  Sherlock,  Archdeacon 
Mason,  Drs.  Crakanthorpe,  AVillet,  and  Claget,  all  showing  their 
cordial  recognition  of  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches  as 
true  Branches  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  of  their  ministers  as 
true  ministers  of  that  Church.^ 

And  to  this  list  it  would  be  easy  to  add  largely  ;  but  it  is  obvi- 
ous, that  the  consentient  testimony  of  such  names  represents  a 
weight  of  evidence  in  favor  of  such  a  point  much  greater  than 
the  mere  number  would  indicate  ;  and  therefore  any  addition  seems 
to  be  unnecessary. 

Nevertheless,  a  few  more  shall  be  given  here. 
_   To  the  passage  formerly  quoted  from  Bishop  Hall,  the  follow- 
ing may  well  be  added  : — 

"The  imputation  pretended  to  be  cast  by  this  tenet  [the  Divine  ri-ht  of 
Episcopacy]  upon  all  the  Reformed  Churches  which  want  this  government 
I  endeavored  so  to  satisfy,  that  I  might  justlv  decline  the  envv  which  is 
intended  to  be  thereby  raised  against  us  ;  for  which  cause,  I  professed  that 
we  do  '  love  and  honor  those  our  Sister-Churches,  as  the  dear  Spouse  of  Christ  ■' 
and  give  zealous  testimonies  of  my  well-wishing  to  them.  Your  uneharita- 
bleness  offers  to  choke  me  with  those  scandalous  censures  and  disgraceful  terms 
which  some  of  ours  have  let  fall  upon  those  churches,  and  their  eminent  pro^ 
lessors  ;  which,  I  confess,  it  is  more  easv  to  be  sorry  for,  than,  on  some  bands 
to  excuse.  The  error  of  a  few  may  not  be  imputed  to  all.  My  just  defence 
is  that  no  such  consequent  can  be  drawn  from  our  opinion  ;  forasmuch  as  the 
Divine  or  Apostolical  right,  which  we  hold,  goes  not  so  high  as  if  there  were 
an  express  command,  that,  upon  an  absolute  necessity,  there  must  be  either 
an  Episcopacy  or  no  Church  :  but  so  far  only,  that  it  both  may  and  ou^ht 
to  be.  How  fain  would  you  here  find  me  in  a  contradiction!  While  I  one- 
rchere,  reckon  Episcopacy  amongst  matters  essential  to  the  Church;  anothc,  where 
deny  it  to  be  of  the  essence  thereof!  Wherein  you  willingly  hide  your  eyes  that 
yen,  may  not  sec  the  distinction  that  Intake  expressly  betwixt  the  Bein,/  and  the 
Well-being  of  a  Church  ;  affirming,  that  ■  those  Churches,  to  whom  this  power 
and  faculty  is  denied,  lose  nothing  of  the  true  essence  of  a  Church  though 
they  miss  something  of  the  glory  and  perfection.'  No,  brethren,  it  is  enuuah 
for  some  of  your  friends,  to  hold  their  Discipline  altogether  essential  to  the  veru 
being  of  a  Church  ;  we  dare  not  be  so  zealous."  (Bp.  HalVs  Def.  of  Humble 
Remonstrance,  Sec.  14.  Works,  vol.  ix.  p.  690.) 

"We  here  see,  that  he  throws  back  upon  the  Puritans  the  exclusive 

*  See  Doctrine,  &c.  p.  31. 

t  See  Doctrine,  fcc,  pp.  31,  33,  where  passages  from  Bishop  Andrews  and  Archbishop 
Bramball  are  given,  full;  proving  this.  }  ]b.  pp.  34)  44.  r 


40 


doctrine  of  the  indispcnsability  of  one  particular  form  of  church 
government,  and  disowns  it ;  and  also,  that  his  general  testimony 
to  Episcopacy  had  been  misunderstood  and  misrepresented,  as  if 
he  had  intended  to  deny  the  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Churches  to 
be  true  Churches  ;  a  fact  which  may  show  how  easy  it  is  to  parade 
the  appearance  of  a  Catena  of  testimonies  from  our  divines  in 
favor  of  the  exclusive  doctrine,  while,  nevertheless,  the  authors  of 
those  testimonies  meant  nothing  of  the  kind.  I  commend  this  to 
Chancellor  Ilarington's  consideration. 

Again,  it  is  worth  our  notice,  that  our  learned  and  esteemed 
divine,  Dr.  Crakanthorp,  not  only  justifies  the  Foreign  Non- 
Episcopal  Churches,  as  I  have  before  shown,  but  distinctly  admits 
that  we  are  in  communion  with  them,  and  that  "  in  doctrine  and 
the  profession  of  the  orthodox  faith  there  is  no  difference  between 
us."  For  in  the  43d  chapter  of  his  Defensio  Ecclesise  Angli- 
canse,  entitled  "  Ecclesiam  Anglicanam  hrereticam  esse,  quia 
communicat  cum  Iieformatis  Ecclesiis  ultramarinis,  calumniatur 
Arch.  Spal."  &c,  he  says: — 

"  'Ecclesia,'  inquis,  '  Anglicana  communionem  publico  et  aperte  profitetur 
cum  Genevcnsi  aliisque  ultramarinis  Ecclesiis.  Etiam  et  Londini  sunt  regia 
concessions  Gallis,  Belgia.Italis,  aperte  Eeclesia?.  IIa)vero  omnes  Calviniano 
veneno  infecta;.  Ipsa  quoque  Geneva,  Puritanorum  mater.  Ab  his  Purita- 
nismus  in  Anglia  fovetur  et  promovetur.  Hae  Anglicanam  professionem  et 
ritus  abominantur:  et  tamen  Anglicana1  .Svnagugas  sorores  sunt  dilectissimae  :' 
Quare  cum  Anglicana  cum  his  ha?reticis  Ecclesiis  communionem  tcneat,  crit 
et  ipsa  quoque  Incretiea.  Imo  nec  Anglicana  est,  nec  i lite  haereticas  ;  sed  tu 
homo  ex  convitiis  et  mendaciis  totus  conflatus,  et  Anglicanos  et  illis  Sanctis 
Dei  Ecclesiis  novus  Shemi  ore  inverecundo  oblatras.  .  .  .  Nec  certe  '  doc- 
trinam  illi  aut  professionem  Anglicanam  abominantur.'  Calumnia  hajc  tua 
est,  cujussi  pudor  tibi  ullus  inesset,  prrnituisse  te  jamdudum  oportuisset.  In 
doctriua  et  Jidei  orthodoxce professione  discordia  inter  nos  nulla.  Hoc  inteyra, 
in  rilibus  et  disciplina  discrimen  fereudvm  utrique  scimus."  (Crakaitth. 
Defens.  Eccles.  Anyl.  contra  Arch.  Spalat.  1G25.  4to.  c.  43,  p.  253,  et  seq.) 

Among  our  learned  divines  Dr.  John  White,  brother  of  Bishop 
Francis  White,  takes  a  high  place.  In  his  Way  to  the  True 
Church,  first  published  in  1608,  he  expressly  includes  the  Foreign 
Non-Episcopal  Churches  as  forming  with  the  Church  of  England 
the  Protestant  Church.  For  in  meeting  the  Romish  objection 
that  "the  Protestants'  Church  is  not  perfectly  one,  or  uniform  in 
dogmatical  points  of  faith,"  he  says,  "  we  for  our  purgation  name 
the  Harmony  of  Confessions,  wherein  the  particular  Churches  set 
down  and  name  the  Articles  of  their  faith ;  the  which  Confessions 
if  the  Jesuit  can  show  to  jar,  as  he  saith,  in  dogmatical  points  of 
faith,  I  am  content  you  believe  him  in  all  the  rest."  (Ed.  1624, 
§  33,  p.  75.)  And  he  entirely  repudiates  the  notion  that  ministe- 
rial succession  is  an  essential  note  of  the  true  Church.  He  says  : — 

"  The  succession  required  to  make  a  Church  Apostolic  must  be  defined  by 
the  doctrine,  and  not  by  the  place  or  p>ersons ;  that  is  to  say,  they  must  be 
reputed  the  Apostles'  successors  which  believe  the  Apostles'  doctrine,  although 
they  have  not  this  outward  succession  of  pastors  visibly  following  one  another 
in  one  place  throughout  all  ages,  as  the  Jesuit  saith  it  is  in  the  Roman 
Church."  "  It  is  no  disadvantage  to  the  Protestants'  Churches  if,  holding  the 
Apostles'  doctrine,  they  want  external  succession  of  place  and  persons,  such 

9 


50 


the  Jesuit  boasteth  of :  because  the  apostolicness  of  the  Church  is  not 
defined  by  it,  but  wheresoever  the  true  faith  contained  in  the  Scriptures  is 
professed  and  embraced,  there  is  the  whole  and  full  nature  of  an  Apostolic 
Church."  (lb.  I  53,  p.  210.)  "  The  Jesuit  objecteth,  that  '  God  hath  planted 
a  Church  to  endure  in  all  ages,  wherein  he  will  have  a  visible  succession  of 
teachers,'  preserved  from  failing  in  the  true  faith  ;  and  therefore  none  are 
sent  of  God  but  such  as  come  in  this  'ordinary'  manner,  called  and  succeed- 
ing '  visibly,'  and  with  '  peculiar  consecration,'  which  Christ  termeth  entering 
in  by  the  door.  The  antecedent  whereof  is  false.  For  though  God's  ordi- 
nance be,  that  he  have  a  Church,  and  teachers  therein,  in  all  ages,  succeeding 
one  another,  and  standing  in  the  truth  ;  yet  he  hath  made  no  law  that  this 
succession  shall  be  '  visible,'  or  with  '  peculiar  consecration,'  as  the  Jesuit 
meaneth  them."  "  Yea,  our  very  adversaries  deny  not  but  a  man  may  be  a 
lawful  minister,  though  a  bishop  never  consecrated  him,  but  a  simple  priest, 
by  dispensation  ;  and  whereas  the  common  opinion  in  the  Church  of  Home  is 
that  a  bishop  differeth  not  from  a  priest  in  order,  but  in  Jurisdiction  only, 
hence  it  followeth,  unavoidably,  that  jure  dicino  a  simple  priest  may  ordain, 
because  the  poiver  of  ordaining  belongeth  not  to  jurisdiction  but  to  order,  as 
they  call  it.  The  which  point  will  serve  to  avoid  all  that  the  Jesuit  hath 
said  in  this  section,  though  we  should  say  no  more."  (lb.  $  58,  pp.  229,  230.) 

This  treatise  was  defended  against  the  Romanists  by  his  brother 
Francis,  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  in  a  work  entitled:  The  Orthodox 
Faith  and  way  to  the  Church  explained  and  justified,  in  which  he 
expressly  vindicates  the  position,  that  "  personal  succession  "  is  not 
an  essential  note  of  the  Church  (2d  ed.  1624,  p.  49),  and  that  the 
Foreign  "Protestant  Churches"  are  at  unity  with  the  Church  of 
England  in  all  essential  points.  (Ib.  pp.  124  and  132,  133.) 

Another  important  testimony  is  that  of  the  learned  John  Forbes 
— son  of  Bishop  Patrick  Forbes,  and  appointed  Divinity  Professor 
at  Aberdeen  in  1619,  and  ejected  in  1640  on  account  of  his  adher- 
ence to  the  cause  of  Episcopacy  and  Charles  I. — occurring  in  his 
Irenicum,  first  printed  in  1629.  And  it  will  be  the  more  esteemed, 
I  suppose,  by  those  who  take  the  opposite  view  to  that  I  am  now 
maintaining,  when  I  mention,  that  he  distinctly  advocates  the  Jus 
Divinum  of  the  Episcopal  form  of  church  government.  One  of 
the  propositions  which  he  lays  down,  and  defends  at  some  length, 
is  the  following  : — 

"  Ecclesia  Orthodoxam  tenens  fidem,  si  careat  Episcopo,  sive  Presbyterorum 
ordinario  praefecto  Dioecesano,  laborat  quidem  defectu  quodam  ceconomico  : 
at  non  propterea  desinitesse  vera  Ecclesia,  neque  excidit  potestate  ilia  Eecle- 
siastica,  quam  habent  alias  Ecclesiae  ab  Episcopis  gubernatae.  Quamvis 
optandum  et  annitendum,  ut  habeat  Episcopum." 

And  on  this  proposition  he  remarks  : — 

"  Gradus  quidem  Episcopalis  est  juris  divini ;  sic  tamen  ut  Ecclesia  esse 
non  desinat,  sed  esse  possit,  et  sitquandoque  vera  Ecclesia  Christiana,  in  qua 
non  reperitur  hie  gradus  ....  Non  ad  esse,  sed  ad  melius  esse  Ecelesi® 
necessaria  est  haec  ceconomia  ....  Yalida  est  ordinatio  quae  peragitur  per 
presbyteros  in  eis  Ecclesiis,  in  quibus  non  est  Episcopus,  aut  ubi  non  estortho- 
doxus,  sed  notorius  hasreticus  et  lupus:  quamvis  decentius  fieret  (si  possibile) 
per  orthodoxum  Episcopum  et  Presbyteros ;  aut  etiam  per  solos  presbyteros, 
consentiente  et  concedente  Episcopo  ....  Habent  Presbyteri  de  jure  divino 
ordinandi,  sicut  praadicandi  et  baptizandi,  potestatem;  quamvis  haec  omnia  ex- 
sequi  debeant  sub  regimine  et  inspectione  Episcopi,  in  locis  ubi  est  Episcopus, 
sicut  dictum  est.  In  aliis  autem  locis,  ubi  Ecclesiaa  communi  tantum  Pres- 
byterorum consilio  administrantur,  valida  est  et  efficax  ordinatio  quae  fit  per 
impositionem  manuum  solius  Presbyterii.  Quin  et  ubi  est  Episcopus,  pos- 
sunt  Presbyteri  ordinare,  consentiente,  licet  non  simul  iuanus  imponente, 


51 


Episcopo:  cui  propria  de  jure  divino  est  sola  authoritas  ct  prrefectura  Epis- 

copalis  ordinare  autem  non  possunt  [presbyteri]  sine  particulari 

commissione  ab  Episcopo,  vol  a  Presbyterorum  Piceeesano  Concilio  in  locis 
ubi  non  est  Episeopus."  (J.  Forbes,  Irenkum,  lib.  ii.  c.  si.  Prop.  13,  Op. 
Amstel.  1703,  vol.  i.  pp.  420-422.) 

The  Bishop  of  Exeter  has  referred  to  the  19th  Article  as  sup- 
porting his  views  of  the  necessity  of  Episcopacy  to  constitute  a 
Church.  The  following  passage  of  our  learned  Bingham — the 
most  deeply  versed  in  ecclesiastical  antiquity,  perhaps,  of  any  of 
our  divines — will  show  how  little  notion  he  had  that  such  a  view 
could  be  extracted  from  it.  After  quoting  this  Article,  and  stating 
that  none  of  our  divines  object  to  it  on  account  of  its  not  mention- 
ing "bishops  or  their  government,"  he  adds  : — 

"For  in  all  their  disputes  with  the  Papists,  they  never  require  more  than 
these  two  notes  of  the  Church.  They  say  with  Bishop  Andrews,  'that  though 
Episcopal  government  be  of  Divine  institution,  yet  it  is  not  so  absolutely 
necessary,  as  that  there  can  be  no  Church,  nor  sacraments,  nor  salvation 
without  it.  He  is  blind  that  sees  not  many  Churches  flourishing  without  it ; 
and  he  must  have  a  heart  as  hard  as  iron,  that  will  deny  them  salvation. 
Something  may  be  wanting,  that  is  of  Divine  right,  in  the  exterior  regimen 
of  the  Church,  and  yet  salvation  be  obtained  therein. '  Now  this  is  the  case 
of  the  French  Church,  which  Bishop  Andrews  and  his  followers  allow  to  have 
all  the  necessary  and  essential  notes  of  a  true  Chin  ch,  though  Episcopal  govern- 
ment was  never  settled  a  mono  them."  {French  Church's  Apol.  for  Church  of 
England,  bk.  2,  c.  2,  Works,  ix.  40,  41.) 

In  the  debate  on  Occasional  Conformity,  in  1702,  Dr.  Sharp, 
Archbishop  of  York,  stated,  that  "  if  he  were  abroad,  he  would 
willingly  communicate  with  the  Protestant  Churches,  where  he 
should  happen  to  be."  (Life  of  Abp.  Sharp,  vol.  i.  p.  377.) 

In  the  debate  on  the  Union  with  Scotland,  in  1707,  Dr.  Tenison, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  said,  "  he  thought  the  narrow  notions 
of  all  Churches  had  been  their  ruin,  and  that  he  believed  the  Church 
of  Scotland  to  be  as  true  a  Protestant  Church  as  the  Church  of 
England,  though  he  could  not  say  it  was  as  perfect."  (Carstares, 
759,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Hallam,  Constit.  Hist.  4th  ed.  ii.  483.) 

I  will  quote  but  one  more  testimony  out  of  the  vast  body  of 
evidence  that  might  be  given  from  our  divines  on  this  subject,  and 
that  shall  be  from  Dr.  John  Scott,  who,  though  no  Low-Church- 
man, and  taking  very  high  views  as  to  the  Divine  right  of  Episco- 
pacy and  the  Episcopal  succession,  says  : — 

"A  Church  may  be  debarred  of  it  by  unavoidable  necessities,  in  despite  of 
its  power,  and  against  its  consent,  and  under  this  circumstance  I  can  by  no 
means  think  such  a  Church  to  be  separated  from  the  Church  Catholic  ;  it  is 
indeed  an  imperfect  and  defective  part  of  the  Catholic  Church;  and  if  this 
defect  of  it  be  any  way  owing  to  its  own  negligence,  it  is  a  very  great  fault 
in  it,  as  well  as  an  unhapipiness.  But  though  this  instituted  government  is 
necessary  to  the  perfection  of  a  Church,  yet  it  doth  not  therefore  follow  that 
it  is  necessary  to  the  being  of  it  Why  may  we  not  reasonably  sup- 
pose, that  the  Catholic  Church  will  admit  presbyters  to  govern  and  ordain, 
where  there  are  no  bishops  to  be  had,  since  it  hath  admitted  laymen  to  bap- 
tize, where  there  are  neither  bishops  nor  presbyters  to  be  had  ?  since  the 
latter  is  as  great  a  deflection  from  positive  institution  as  the  former."  (  Christ- 
ian Life,  5th  ed.  1747,  vol.  iii.  pp.  310-313.) 

Into  his  Lordship's  remarks,  occupying  nearly  the  whole  of 
the  remainder  of  his  pamphlet,  upon  the  present  state  of  the 


52 


Foreign  Protestant  Churches,  and  upon  the  individual  members 
of  those  Churches  who  recently  came  over  to  this  country,  I  shall 
not  enter,  because  my  object  has  been  to  discuss  principles,  not 
their  particular  application.  To  do  justice  to  the  subject  -would 
require  a  much  more  extended  examination  of  it  than  his  Lordship's 
ex  parte  statements  afford,  or  than  would  be  possible  in  this  place. 

I  shall  merely  observe,  that,  speaking  generally,  the  Public  Con- 
fessions of  those  Churches  are  before  the  world  ;  and  that  however 
much  many  of  their  members  may  have  departed  from  their  true 
meaning,  it  would  be  as  unjust  to  renounce  all  brotherly  commu- 
nion with  their  sound  members,  as  it  would  be  for  them  to  renounce 
all  communion  with  every  member  of  our  Church,  because  of  the 
Romish  views  of  many  of  our  clergy.  And  as  to  any  who  may  have 
been  forced  to  separate  from  those  Churches  on  account  of  the  cor- 
ruptions prevailing  in  them,  and  form  a  separate  body  holding  an 
orthodox  confession  of  faith,  such  have  a  still  stronger  claim  upon 
us  for  our  sympathy  and  Christian  fellowship. 

But  I  may  be  permitted  to  ask  his  Lordship  this  question  : 
Was  he,  or  ivas  he  not,  a  consenting  party  to  the  Letter  sent  in  1835 
by  the  late  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  the  name  of  himself  and  his 
"  brother  bishops,"  to  "the  Moderator  of  the  Company  of  Pastors 
at  Geneva"  expressing  their  "high  respect  for  the  Protestant 
Churches  on  the  Continent,"  and  speaking  of  the  Genevan  Re- 
formation as  a  "noble  achievement,  which  brought  light  out  of 
darkness,  and  rescued  their  Church  from  the  shackles  of  Papal 
domination  and  the  tyrannical  imposition  of  a  corrupt  faith,  and 
a  superstitious  ritual,"  wrought  by  "  illustrious  men,  who,  under 
the  direction  of  Almighty  God,  were  the  instruments  of  this  happy 
deliverance,"  "an  event  not  less  glorious  to  Geneva  than  con- 
ducive to  the  success  of  the  Reformation  ?" 

It  is  scarcely  to  be  supposed,  that  such  a  Letter  should  have 
been  sent  by  the  late  Archbishop  in  the  name  of  his  "  brother 
bishops"  without  the  knowledge  or  assent  of  the  Bishop  of  Exeter. 
And  certainly  incredible,  that  if  he  had  dissented  from  it,  his  dis- 
sent should  not  have  been  made  known  to  the  public.  If,  there- 
fore, such  a  Letter  as  this  was  sent  with  the  sanction  of  the  Right 
Reverend  Prelate,  with  what  face  can  he  now  turn  round  upon  the 
present  Archbishop,  and  assail  him  as  he  has  for  holding  that  the 
ministers  of  "  the  Protestant  Churches  on  the  Continent"  are  true 
ministers  of  Christ  ?  He  cannot  venture  to  assert  that  the  state  of 
things  in  those  Churches  is  worse  now  than  it  was  then. 

May  I  be  permitted  also  to  remind  his  Lordship,  that  it  is  not 
so  many  years  since  he  himself  was  on  a  Committee  formed  for  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  aid  for  the  Yaudois  Pastors.  Now  if,  as  his 
Lordship  here  tells  us,  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  by 
such  persons  is  "a  profane  mockery,"  that  its  effects  are  obtain- 
able "  only"  through  an  Episcopal  ministry,*  and  that  persons 

*  Christ  "  gave  to  His  Church — celebrating  it  as  he  celebrated,  but  only  so — and  by 
those  whom  He  authorized,  but  only  by  them  [the  meanins  of  which  words  the  Bishop 
has  himself  told  us] — a  holy  sacrament  which  should  be,"  &c.  (P.  S3.) 


53 


not  Episcopally  ordained  "have  no  other  title"  to  the  ministry 
"  than  their  own  presumption,  or  the  presumption  of  men  like 
themselves,  who  have  dared  to  affect  to  confer  it  on  them," 
(p.  83,)  and  that  "we  see  not  any  promise  of  a  blessing"  to  such  a 
ministry  (p.  87),  then,  surely,  to  be  on  the  Committee  of  a  Society 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  such  "  profane  mockery"  and 
"  presumption,"  is  an  act  for  which  it  is  difficult  to  account  in  one 
who  has  such  high  views  of  Christian  duty.  Certainly  the  claims 
of  charity  can  be  no  sufficient  defence.  The  only  true  charity 
would  have  been,  to  have  warned  them  of  the  fatal  delusion  under 
which  they  were  acting,  and  urged  them,  at  the  peril  of  their  salva- 
tion and  that  of  their  flocks,  to  receive  the  imposition  of  Episcopal 
hands  ;  and  to  have  withheld  any  aid  until  this  was  done. 

Nay  more  ;  I  would  ask  his  Lordship,  where  we  can  find  his  in- 
dignant protests  against  the  course  pursued  for  so  many  years  by 
the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  (of  which  his  Lord- 
ship is  ex-officio  a  leading  governor)  of  sending  out  missionaries 
not  having  Episcopal  Orders  ?  Such  matters  usually  come  before 
the  public.  But  I  am  unable  to  find  that  there  was  any  move- 
ment, on  the  part  of  his  Lordship,  on  the  subject.  At  any  rate  it 
must  have  been  one  of  very  recent  date. 

Why,  then,  may  I  ask,  was  all  his  indignation  in  this  matter 
reserved  for  his  present  Metropolitan  ? 

There  is  another  point  also  which  his  Lordship  will,  I  hope,  per- 
mit me  to  bring  under  his  attention.  He  has,  in  various  parts  of 
his  present  pamphlet,  thrown  out  divers  remarks  about  Calvinism 
and  Oalvinists,  as  something  quite  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  England.    (See  pp.  45,  46,  &c.) 

Let  me  remind  him  of  the  words  in  which  a  divine,  whose  au- 
thority he  will  respect,  once  rebuked  a  celebrated  statesman  for 
speaking  slightingly  of  "  Calvinists"  : — 

"To  the  peculiar  tenets  of  that  denomination  of  Christians,  to  which  you 
appear  to  allude,  I  am  very  far  from  subscribing  ;  but  thus  much  I  will  say, 
that  no  man,  who  knows  what  they  real!;/  are,  will  ever  treat  them  with  contempt. 
You,  Sir,  do  not  appear  to  have  yet  risen  above  the  vulgarest  prejudices  on 
this  subject;  else  you  would  have  known,  that  opi>iions  which  have  commended 
themselves  to  the  full  and  firm  conviction  of  some  op  tue  ablest,  as  well  as 

IIOLIEST,  MEN  WHO  HAVE  EVER  ADORNED  OUR  CllURCH,  are  Hot  to  be  thllS  bloiOl 

down  by  '  the  whiff  and  wind'  of  the  smartest  piece  of  rhetoric  ever  discharged 
in  your  honorable  House." 

Such  were  the  terms  in  which  the  Rev.  Dr.  Phillpotts  addressed 
the  Right  Hon.  George  Canning  in  1825,  in  his  "Letter"  to  him 
on  the  Roman  Catholic  Bill  of  that  year.  (Pp.  106,  107.)  I  may 
fairly  hope,  then,  that  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  will  remember  this 
indignant  remonstrance  of  Dr.  Phillpotts ;  and  pause  to  reflect, 
before  he  singles  out  for  his  reproaches,  or  again  endeavors,  as 
he  has  of  late  been  doing,  to  drive  out  of  the  Church  those 
whose  only  crime  it  is  to  hold  the  same  views  with  "  some  op  the 
ablest,  as  well  as  holiest,  men  who  have  ever  adorned  our 
Chdrch." 


There  remains  but  one  point  more  for  notice  in  his  Lordship's 


■A 


"  Letter  ;"  and  that  is  one  which,  among  all  the  extraordinary 
specimens  we  have  lately  had  of  his  Lordship's  qualifications  for 
the  high  post  he  has  assumed  to  himself  in  our  Church,  is  perhaps 
entitled  to  the  first  place.  It  occurs  in  the  last  page  of  his 
"  Letter."  Unfortunately  for  his  Lordship,  a  piece  of  informa- 
tion was  brought  him  which  he  calls  a  "  particular  of  very  great 
moment  in  this  discussion,  with  which  I  have  only  recently  become 
acquainted,"  namely,  "  the  form  of  Ordination  used  among  Cal- 
vinists."    And  upon  this  the  Bishop  thus  comments  : — 

"Our  Church  regards  the  Christian  ministry  as  a  commission  from  God 
himself,  and  confers  it  in  His  name.  Not  so  the  'Reformed  communities,  so 
far  as  I  can  find.  In  The  Discipline  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  France,' 
'  The  Form  of  Ordination'  is  as  follows  :  '  That  it  may  please  God  to  vouch- 
safe grace  unto  this  Elect  Person,  a  short  Prayer  shall  be  conceived  to  this 
purpose  :  "  0  Lord  God,  we  beseeeh  Thee  to  endow  with  the  gifts  and  graces 
of  thy  Holy  Spirit  this  thy  servant  lawfully  chosen  according  to  that  Order 
established  in  thy  Church,  and  abundantly  to  enrich  him  with  all  abilities 
needful  for  his  acceptable  performance  of  the  duties  of  his  office  to  the  glory 
of  Thy  Holy  name,  the  edification  of  Thy  Church,  and  his  own  salvation, 
whom  we  now  dedicate  and  consecrate  unto  Thee  by  this  our  ministry.'"  Com- 
pare with  this  our  own  Ordinal:  'Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and 
work  of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of  God,  now  committed  unto  thee  by  the  im- 
position of  our  hands.  Whose  sins,  &c,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  I  stop  not  to  discuis  the  causes  of  this 
difference.  R  is  enough  to  say,  that  they  are  essentially  different  ;  that  the 
one  professes  to  confer  a  commission  from  God  in  His  name,  whereas  the 
other  simply  '  dedicates  and  consecrates  unto  God'  the  person  ordained. 
TnE  plain  consequence  is,  tuat  there  can  be  no  injustice  in  denying 

THAT  THE  LATTER  HAS  ANY  COMMISSION  FROM  GOD  ;  HIS  OWN  ORDINATION  DOES 
NOT  PROFESS  TO  GIVE  IT." 

Now  it  is  difficult  to  know  in  what  terms  to  speak  of  such  a 
passage  as  this.  Were  it  not  for  the  tone  and  position  assumed 
by  the  writer,  one  might  be  inclined  on  several  grounds  to  puss  it 
by  with  the  slightest  possible  notice,  and  throw  a  veil  over  it.  But, 
under  present  circumstances,  when  his  Lordship  is  misleading  a 
host  of  our  younger  clergy  to  the  borders  of  Rome,  and  teaching 
them  to  vilify  the  authorities  of  Church  and  State  as  ignorant  or 
incompetent  persons  for  not  adopting  his  views  of  orthodoxy,  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  plainly  to  point  attention  to  such  proofs  of 
the  nature  of  the  guidance  to  which  they  are  submitting;  especially 
as  this  "  Letter"  of  his  Lordship  has  received  from  his  party  the 
highest  encomiums  as  a  most  able  and  masterly  performance.  Is 
there  no  kind  friend  whom  his  Lordship  can  consult,  before  he 
thus  commits  himself  in  a  way  that  brings  reproach  upon  the 
Church  as  well  as  himself? 

Is  his  Lordship,  then,  really  ignorant  of  the  notorious  fact  that 
nearly  twelve  centuries  passed  over  the  Church  before  those  words, 
"  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  &c,  were  introduced  into  the  Ordi- 
nation Service?  Does  he  really  need  to  be  informed,  what  was 
the  character  of  the  early  Ordination  Services  of  the  Church,  and 
that  he  has  actually  invalidated  the  ministry  of  the  whole  pro- 
bably of  the  early  Western  Church,  and  left  the  ministry  of  the 
Greek  Church  to  this  day  in  a  rather  dubious  position  ? 


55 


I  shall  have  a  few  remarks  to  make  presently  on  the  correctness 
of  his  Lordship's  statement  as  to  what  is  done  in  the  French 
Church.    But  I  will  first  deal  with  it  precisely  as  it  stands. 

Now  first,  as  to  the  use  of  the  formula,  "  Receive  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  &c,  we  have  the  authority  of  the  learned  Morinus,  in 
his  standard  treatise  on  the  subject  of  Ordinations,  that  it  was 
unknown  in  the  Church  for  tioelve  centuries.    He  says : — 

"  Dispiciamus  an  ilia  postrema  manus  impositio,  cum  qua  jungitur  ilia 
formula,  '  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum,  quorum  remisoritis  peccata,'  &c,  sit 
formaliter  vera  et  antiqua  Sacerdotii  forma,  aut  pars  illius,  quam  Apostoli  et 

antiqui  nobis  tradiderunt  Tota  ilia  ceremonia,  et  secundum  materiam,  et 

secundum  formam,  et  secundum  circumstantias,  mille  ducentis  annis  incog- 
nita fuit  in  Ecclesia  Dei.  Nulli  rituales  ante  hoc  tempus  illius  mcminerunt, 
licet  copiosi  sint,  et  singulos  ritus  pauci  momenti  sigillatim  describant.  Imo 
nonnulli  sunt  eo  tempore  longe  recentiores,  et  diffusi  admodum,  qui  illam 
praetereunt."  (Murin.  De  Ordin.  Pt.  3,  Exerc.  7,  c.  2,  ed.  1G95,  p.  106.) 

"Verba  ilia,  '  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum,'  ab  antiquis  Latinis  usurpata  non 
fuisse  ;  et  consequenter  nec  Ordinationis  Presbyteralis,  nec  cujusvis  alterius, 
formam  fuisse,  praeter  argumentajam  allegata,  ex  omnium  ritualium  et  auto- 
rum  antiquorum,  qui  de  officiis  ecclesiasticis  scripserunt,  profundo  silentio 
petita,  demonstrant  evidenter  nonnulla  alia  qua;  hie  subjicimus."  (lb.  c.  5, 
p.  118.) 

The  same  learned  author  maintains  at  large  : — 

"Solam  manuum  impositionem  Presbyteratus  esse  materiam."  "Ilnnc 
solam  omnis  Ecclesia,  Latina,  Grajca,  Barbara,  semper  agnovit.  Hanc  solam 
commemorant  omnes  antiqui  Rituales,  Latini,  Graeci ;  omnes  antiqui  et  re- 
centiores Patres,  Giaeci,  Latiui."    (Ib.  c.  1.  pp.  102,  103.) 

And  he  points  to  all  the  old  Greek  Rituals  and  Fathers  as  show- 
ing that  in  the  ordination  of  a  Presbyter  nothing  more  was  necessary 
tka?i  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer.    He  says  : — 

"Legantur  et  relegantur  prascedentes  Graecarum  Ordinationum  axotovOiai, 
seu  rituales ;  legatur  S.  Clemens,  Sanctus  Dionysius,  nihil  aliud  sedula 
lectione  denrehendes  proater  manuum  impositionem  et  orationem  quod  liste- 
rias et  forma;  rationem  induere  possit.  Sed  consideretur  prassei'tim  S.  Dionysius 
qui  ritus  istos  diligenter  persequitur,  mystice  et  tropologice  multis  verbis  ex- 
plicat ;  versentur  et  revolvantur  ipsius  verba,  nihil  aliud  prceter  manuum  im- 
positionem et  orationem,  aut  si  vis  addere  genuflexionem,  tibi  occurret,  cui 
substantiate  aliquid  possis  affingere."    (Ib.  c.  1,  p.  104.) 

And  now  let  us  see,  from  the  words  of  some  of  the  ancient  Or- 
dination Services  of  the  Western  Church,  whatsort  of  prayers  they 
were  which,  at  that  time,  accompanied  the  imposition  of  hands. 
The  Bishop  tells  us,  that  the  Service  of  the  French  Church,  though 
it  has  retained  the  imposition  of  hands,  yet,  by  only  praying  for 
spiritual  gifts,  and  saying,  "whom  we  now  dedicate  and  consecrate 
unto  thee  by  this  our  ministry,"  is  essentially  defective,  and  the 
party  so  ordained  has  no  commission  from  God,  and  so,  in  his 
Lordship's  view,  is  not  really  ordained  at  all. 

In  the  great  work  of  Morinus  on  this  subject,  written  in  the 
middle  of  the  17th  century,  are  given  some  forms  of  Ordination 
from  various  very  ancient  Rituals  of  the  Western  Church.  The 
first  is  from  a  MS.  which  was  then  eleven  centuries  old,  which 
carries  us  back  to  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century,  and  appears  to 
have  belonged  to  the  Church  of  Poictiers.    I  need  hardly  say,  that 


56 


the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  offering  up  the  prayers  there  given, 
form  the  whole  service.  And  now  let  us  see  what  the  prayers  are. 
The  prayer  "  ad  Presbyteros  ordinandos  "  is  this:  "Exaudi  nos 
Deus  salutaris  noster,  et  super  hunc  famulum  tuum  benedictionem 
Spiritus  S.  et  gratis  sacerdotalis  effunde  virtutem,  ut  quern  tuse 
pietatis  suspectibus  offerimus  consecrandum,  perpetua  inuneris  tui 
largitate  persequaris.  Per  Dominum."  Then  follows  the  prayer 
of"  Consecration,"  which,  after  an  opening  in  general  terms,  pro- 
ceeds thus  :  "  Da  qusesumus,  omnipotens  Pater,  in  hoc  famulo  tuo 
illo  Presbyterii  dignitatem:  Innova  in  visceribus  ejus  Spiritum 
sanctitatis,"  &c.  Then  comes  the  "  Consummatio  Presbyteri," 
which  commences  with  the  following  exhortation  to  the  people  : 
"  Sit  nobis  fratres  communis  oratio,  ut  his  [hie]  qui  in  adjutorium 
et  utilitatem  vestrae  salutis  eligetur,  Presbyteratus  benedictionem 
diviniindulgentia  muneris  consequatur,  et  S.  Spiritus  sacerdotalia 
dona  privilegio  virtutum,  ne  impar  loco  deprehendatur  obtineat  per 
suum.*  Per."  And  then  follows  theprayerof  "Benediction:"  "Sanc- 
tificationum  omnium  autor,  cujus  vera  consecratio,  plena  benedictio 
est,  Tu,  Domine,  super  hunc  famulum  ill.  quern  Presbyterii  honore 
dedicajius,  manum  tuse  benedictionis  in  eum  infunde,  ut  gravitate 
actuum  et  censura  vivendi  probet  se  esse  seniorem,"  &c.  &c. 

And  I  may  just  add,  that  the  prayers  at  the  ordination  of  a 
deacon  and  the  consecration  of  a  bishop  are  of  a  similar  kind,  the 
words  in  the  prayer  of  Consecration  for  a  deacon  being,  if  possible, 
a  still  more  exact  counterpart  of  those  in  the  French  Service — 
"  Super  hunc  famulum  tuum  quaasumus,  Domine,  placatus  intende, 

QUEM  TUIS  SACIUS  SERVITURDJI  IN  OFFICIDM  DiACONI  SUPPLICITEK 

dedicamus."    (Morin.  1.  c.  Pt.  2,  pp.  214,  215.) 

Here,  then,  we  find  nothing  beyond  a  dedication  of  the  person 
to  the  office,  and  humble  prayer  for  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  to  fit  him 
for  the  right  discharge  of  its  duties.  In  a  word,  we  have  the  precise 
form  of  Ordination  which  the  Bishop  tells  us  is  essentially  defective. 

The  next  Ordinal  given  by  Morinus  is  from  a  MS.  then  nine 
hundred  years  old,  where  the  title  to  the  Ordination  Services  is 
"  Ordo  qualiter  in  Romana  sedis  Apostolicse  Ecclesia  Presbyteri, 
Diaconi  vel  Subdiaconi  eligendi  sunt."  And  here,  again,  the 
prayers  are,  as  far  as  our  present  subject  is  concerned,  exactly  of 
the  same  kind,  the  same  words  indeed  being  used :  "  Quos  tuse 
pietatis  aspectibus  offerimus  consecrandos" — "  super  hos  famulos 
tuos  quos  Presbyterii  honore  dedicamus,  manum  tuas  benedictionis 
his  infunde."    (Ib.  p.  217.) 

The  next  is  from  a  MS.  then  eight  hundred  years  old,  in  which  is 
given  the  "Ordo  qualiter  in  Romana  Ecclesia  Diaconi  et  Presbyteri 
ordinandi  sunt;"  in  which  the  same  prayers  are  found.  (Ib. p.  221.) 

And  these,  in  short,  are  followed  by  Ordination  Services  from 
various  other  very  ancient  MSS.  belonging  originally  to  different 
places  in  the  Western  Church,  all  of  the  same  kind,  and  most  of 
them  in  precisely  the  same  words  on  the  point  we  are  now  con- 

*  These  two  words  per  suum  are  probably  added  by  a  misprint. 


57 


sidel  ing.  So  that  here  we  see  the  general  form  of  Ordination  that 
prevailed  for  several  centuries  in  the  Western  Church. 

And  the  nature  of  these  Services  is  in  strict  conformity  with  the 
testimony  of  the  early  Fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  as  to  what 
was  considered  necessary  for  Ordination,  which  they  represent  as 
being  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer. 

Thus  Theodoret,  telling  us  of  the  ordination  of  a  hermit  per- 
formed by  the  bishop  of  a  neighboring  city,  who  sought  him  out 
for  the  purpose,  says  that  he  entered  the  place  where  he  was,  and 
"  laid  his  hand  upon  him  and  offered  the  prayer,  and  spake  much 
to  him,"  &c* 

And  so  Jerome  says,  that  the  ordination  of  the  clergy  is  ful- 
filled, "  not  merely  by  the  prayer  of  the  voice  over  them,  but  by 
the  imposition  of  the  hand."t 

And,  to  cite  no  more,  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (as  they  are 
called)  speak  only  of  the  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer  in  their 
account  of  the  form  of  ordination  for  a  presbyter;  and  the  prayer 
of  Consecration  there  given  is  merely  a  supplication  to  God  for 
his  grace  to  fit  the  person  ordained  for  the  duties  of  his  office. J 
And  in  the  Form  given  in  these  Constitutions  for  the  appointment 
of  a  bishop,  there  is  not  even  imposition  of  hands ;  which  is,  it 
should  be  observed,  another  testimony  for  the  parity  of  Order  in 
bishops  and  presbyters.  After  the  people  and  presbyters  present 
have  been  asked,  whether  they  are  satisfied  with  the  person 
elected,  and  have  testified  in  his  favor,  one  of  three  bishops 
standing  near  the  altar  is  to  offer  a  prayer  to  God  for  a  blessing 
upon  him,  some  deacons  holding  the  Gospels  open  upon  his  head. 
After  the  prayer,  one  of  the  bishops  is  to  give  him  the  eucharistic 
elements  (t^  evalav),  and  the  next  morning  he  is  enthroned  by  the 
rest  of  the  bishops,  all  of  them  kissing  him;  and  after  the  reading 
of  certain  portions  of  Holy  Scripture,  he  gives  the  blessing,  and 
preaches  to  the  people,  and  then  follows  the  Communion  Service. 
(Constit.  Apostol.  lib.  viii.  cc.  4,  et  seq.) 

In  fact,  his  Lordship  need  not  have  gone  farther  than  our  own 
Bingham  to  have  discovered  his  error  ;  who  expressly  says,  and 
quotes  sufficient  authorities  to  prove  it,  that  "  it  is  plain,  the 
ancient  Form  was  only  imposition  of  hands  and  a  Consecration- 
prayer."  And  having  given  the  Consecration-prayer  in  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  he  says : — 

"Where  we  may  observe,  that  it  was  not  then  thought  necessary  to  express 
all  or  any  of  the  offices  of  a  presbyter  in  particular,  but  only  in  general  to  pray 
for  grace  to  be  given  to  the  priest  then  ordained,  whereby  he  might  be  enabled  to 
perform  them.  And  this,  with  a  solemn  imposition  of  hands,  was  reckoned  a 
sufficient  form  of  consecration."  (Antiq.  bk.  2,  c.  19,  \  17.) 

The  French  Service,  therefore,  is  more  consonant  with  the 
Forms  of  the  earlier  and  purer  period  of  the  Church  than  our  own. 

*  Tit  XHtx  •*W»M,  xit  ril  (i^iv  felHT&Irt,  xct'i  TrckKa  fxh  v^bc  alnii  tpn.  Tlieodorct. 
Philotheus,  seu  Relig.  Hist.  c.  19,  Op.  Hal.  1771,  torn.  3,  p.  1232. 

t  Non  solum  ad  imprecationem  vocis,  sed  ad  impositionem  impletur  manus.  Hieron. 
Comment,  in  Is.  c.  58,  v.  10,  Op.  ed.  Vallars.  torn.  4,  col.  694,  695. 

t  Constit.  Apostol.  lib.  viii.  c.  16. 


58 


And  now  let  me  remind  his  Lordship  of  the  consequences  of  the 
doctrine  he  has  thus  propounded.  He  has  shivered  to  atoms  the 
whole  doctrine  of  the  Apostolical  Succession,  for  he  has  left  the 
whole  Western  Church  without  any  Orders  at  all.  He  has  not 
left  us  even  my  poor  "Low  Church"  notion  on  the  subject.  I  did 
think,  we  in  the  Church  of  England  had  something  more  to  say 
in  favor  of  the  regularity  of  our  Orders  than  other  recently- 
constituted  Bodies,  who  have  been  driven  by  circumstances  to 
somewhat  irregular  courses  ;  heartily  as  I  repudiate  the  Tracta- 
rian  doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession.  But  his  Lordship  has 
swept  away  even  this.  He  is,  upon  his  own  showing,  equally 
destitute  of  valid  Orders  with  any  of  those  whom  he  has  so  fiercely 
attacked  in  his  Letter  for  "profane  mockery"  and  "presump- 
tion ;"  for  his  golden  chain  of  legitimate  succession,  instead  of 
reaching  to  the  Apostles,  runs  back  only  a  third  of  the  way.  And 
what  is  more,  I  am  afraid  there  is  no  Church  on  earth  that  can 
help  him  out  of  his  dilemma.  For  the  Greek  form  of  Ordination, 
even  if  it  could  be  proved  to  have  been  uninterruptedly  used,  is 
far  from  coming  up  to  his  standard.  For  the  Bishop  in  the  Greek 
Church  does  not  do  more  than  recognize  God's  supposed  call  of  the  or- 
dained person  to  the  office  of  presbyter,  and  His  itseof  the  Ordainer's 
ministry  for  the  external  consecration  of  such  person  to  that  office. 

The  Greek  Bishop,  on  laying  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the 
person  to  be  ordained  a  presbyter,  says :  "  The  Divine  grace, 
which  healeth  that  which  is  weak,  and  supplieth  the  wants  of  that 
which  is  defective,  promoteth  this  most  pious  deacon  to  be  a  pres- 
byter. Let  us  therefore  pray  over  him,  that  the  grace  of  the 
most  Holy  Spirit  may  come  upon  him."  And  in  the  Prayer  occur 
these  words — "to  whom  Thou  hast  vouchsafed  that  he  should  be 

promoted  by  me."  (ov  ^iSox^aa;  rtpo%cif>ia9^va.i,  «ap  ipov.) 

And  the  Form  for  consecrating  a  Bishop  is  of  a  similar  kind. 
And  in  the  prayer  at  the  Ordination  of  a  deacon,  any  power  or 
commission  in  the  Ordainer  to  communicate  grace  by  the  imposition 
of  his  hands  is  distinctly  repudiated,  for  it  is  said  :  "  Fill  him  with 
all  faith  and  love,  &c,  for  not  by  the  imposition  of  my  hands,  but 
by  the  superintending  agency  of  thy  rich  mercies  (J»  rj  ixiexonij  tip 
rtxovaiuv  gov  olxtifuZv)  is  grace  given  to  those  worthy  of  thee." 

I  take  this  from  the  last  edition  of  the  'Apxitpattxbv  (printed  at 
the  Patriarchal  press  at  Constantinople  in  1820  for  the  use  of  the 
Greek  Bishops),  which  I  obtained  direct  from  Constantinople. 

This,  no  doubt,  the  Bishop  will  think  much  better  than  such  a 
Form  as  that  he  has  referred  to,  or  the  old  Services  of  the  Western 
Church  ;  and  as  the  validity  of  his  own  Orders  stands  self-con- 
demned, he  may  like  to  avail  himself  of  the  superior  privileges  of 
the  Greek  Church,  to  which  certainly  there  can  be  no  objection. 
It  will  be  but  reasonable. 

But  before  I  dismiss  this  subject,  I  must  add  one  word  as  to 
the  correctness  of  the  Bishop's  statement  with  relation  to  the 
French  Church.  He  complains  that  the  French  Church  does  not 
profess  to  confer  a  commission  from  God  in  his  name.    Now  if  his 


50 


Lordship  had  looked  only  to  the  page  previous  to  that  from  which 
he  has  quoted,  he  would  have  found  that  Canon  5  directs,  that 
"  the  Assembly  remonstrating  to  him  [the  person  to  be  ordained] 
the  duty  of  that  office  whereunto  he  is  called,  shall  farther  declare 
that  power  which  is  given  HIM  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
to  minister  both  in  the  Word  and  Sacraments."* 

And  farther,  it  would  have  been  well,  if  his  Lordship  had  recol- 
lected, that  the  original  of  the  Canon  he  was  quoting  was  in  French, 
and  therefore  that  before  he  made  it  the  subject  of  such  a  serious 
charge  against  the  whole  Reformed  French  Church,  it  would  have 
been  wise  to  have  ascertained  how  it  stood  in  the  original. 
The  words  in  the  original  are  not  "  whom  we  now  dedicate  and  con- 
secrate unto  Thee  by  this  our  ministry,"  but,  "who  is  now  dedicated 
and  consecrated  by  our  ministry"  (est  maintenant  de'die  et  consacre* 
par  notre  ministere)  ;f  which  is  very  similar  to  the  Greek  Form. 

Such,  then,  is  the  character  of  his  Lordship's  censure  upon  the 
Form  of  Ordination  in  the  French  Reformed  Church.  He  is  evi- 
dently totally  unacquainted  with  the  Ordination-Services  of  the 
Primitive  Church  for  many  centuries;  he  assumes  the  indispensable 
necessity  of  the  particular  Form  that  happens  to  occur  in  our  own 
Service,  which  was  not  introduced  till  the  12th  century,  and 
he  flings  his  random  reproaches  at  other  Churches  in  a  way  that 
makes  them  so  recoil  upon  himself  and  his  own  Church  as  to 
deprive  both  of  any  valid  Orders. 

It  is,  however,  it  must  be  confessed,  nothing  more  than  what 
might  be  expected  as  the  consequence  of  that  deeply-rooted  evil 
from  which  our  Church  is,  and  has  long  been,  suffering.  Church, 
State,  and  Universities  long  combined  to  treat  all  such  knowledge 
as  of  no  more  value  than  an  old  almanac.  And  the  result  has 
been,  as  might  be  expected,  the  present  state  of  profound,  chaotic, 
and  hopeless  confusion  in  our  Church. 

But  his  Lordship  has  one  more  charge  to  bring  against  the 
French  Reformed  Church.    He  says  :— 

"  In  conformity  with  these  different  views  of  the  nature  of  the  Christian 
ministry,  is  the  view  taken  of  the  indelibility  of  Holy  Orders.  We  regard 
them  as  simply  indelible  ;  even  degradation,  though  it  disables  the  party  from 
exercising  any  ministry,  does  not  erase  the character.  Not  so  the  '.Reformed' — 
whose  XI th  Canon  is, '  Such  as  are  chosen  unto  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  must 
know,  that  they  be  in  that  office  for  term  of  life  ;  unless  they  be  discharged 
upon  (jood  and  certain  considerations,  and  that  by  the  Provincial  Synod.'  " 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  this  Canon  does  not  touch  the  question 
of  the  indelibility  of  the  character  imparted  by  Holy  Orders,  for 
it  does  not  state  in  what  condition  the  person  is  who  is  discharged 
from  the  ministry.  And  in  all  Churches  there  is  a  power  in  the 
Church  to  take  away  the  "  office"  of  minister  in  that  Church  on 
good  and  sufficient  grounds.  And  if  his  Lordship  means  to  inti- 
mate, that  the  person  thus  discharged  would  so  have  lost  his 
Orders  in  the  French  Church  by  this  discharge,  that  if  at  any 

*  Quick's  Synodicon,  vol.  i.  p.  xvii. 

t  Conf'ormite  de  la  Discipline  Ecclesiasti(]ue  des  Protestans  de  France,  &c.  1678, 
4to.   By  M.  Larroque,  whose  name  is  appended  to  the  Dedicatory  Epistle. 


GO 


subsequent  time  he  was  found  fit  and  competent  to  fulfil  the 
duties  of  the  ofiBce,  he  -would  have  to  be  reordained,  the  53d 
French  Canon  shows  his  mistake;  for  it  enacts,  that  "ministers 
deposed"  "  for  slighter  faults,  upon  confession  of  them,  they  may  be 
restored  by  the  Provincial  Synod,  but  with  this  condition,  to  serve  in 
another  Province,  and  not  in  their  own."  (Quick,  Synod,  i.  xxvi.) 

And  as  to  the  Bishop's  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Church 
on  the  subject,  I  shall  merely  place  by  the  side  of  it  the  following 
remarks  of  our  learned  Ecclesiastical  antiquary  Bingham. 

"  The  full  import  of  the  phrase,  and  the  adequate  notion  of  reducing  a 
clergyman  to  lay-conimunion,  is  totally  degrading  and  depriving  him  of  his 
Orders  ;  that  is,  the  power  and  authority  of  his  clerical  office  and  function, 
and  reducing  him  to  the  state  and  quality  and  simple  condition  of  a  layman. 

 This  st/pposcs  a  power  in  the  Church,  not  only  of  conferring  Clerical 

Orders  at  first  to  men,  and  promoting  them  from  laymen  to  be  bishops,  or 
presbyters,  or  deacons;  but  also  a  power  of  recalling  these  offices,  and  divesting 
them  of  all  power  and  authority  belonging  to  them,  by  degrading  clergymen 
vpon  just  reasons,  and  reducing  them  to  the  slate  and  quality  of  laymen 
again.  This  is  undoubtedly  the  true  meaning  of  all  those  ancient  canons  and 
writers,  which  speak  so  often  of  degrading  clergymen  for  their  offences,  and 
allowing  them  only  to  communicate  in  the  quality  of  laymen.  Hereby  they 
were  deprived  of  their  order  and  office,  and  power  and  authority,  and  even 
the  name  and  title  of  clergymen;  and  reputed  and  treated  as  private  Christ- 
ians, wholly  divested  of  all  their  former  dignity,  and  clerical  powers  and  pri- 
vileges, and  reduced  entirely  to  the  state  and  condition  of  laymen."  "The 
plain  result  of  this  discourse  is,  that  reducing  a  clergyman  to  the  communion 
of  laymen  was  a  total  deprivation  and  divesting  him  of  his  office  and  Orders. 
So  that  if  he  now  pretended  to  act  as  a  minister,  his  actions  were  reputed  null 
and  void,  and  as  no  other  than  the  actions  of  a  layman.  The  learned  Dr. 
Forbes  has  rightly  observed  this  (Iren.  lib.  2.  c.  11)  in  the  ancient  disci- 
pline, and  I  cannot  better  express  it  than  in  his  words:  'He  that  is 
deposed  with  a  plenary  and  perfect  deposition,  cannot  now  validly  exercise 
the  offices  that  belong  to  his  order,  because  he  wants  his  order  and  the  power 
of  his  order.  He  is  now  nothing  but  a  mere  layman,  and  in  so  much  a 
worse  condition  than  other  laymen,  because  the  restitution  of  such  an  one  to 
his  office  is  a  much  more  difficult  thing  than  the  promotion  of  other  laymen.'" 
"It  may  perhaps  be  said,  there  was  still  an  inherent  power  and  authority 
in  such  deposed  clerks,  and  that  their  deposition  did  not  totally  annul  their 
ordinations:  for  they  still  retained  the  indelible  character  of  their  respective 
Orders;  and  therefore  they  might  be  ministers  still,  and  their  ministerial 
actions  stand  good  and  authentic,  notwithstanding  any  power  and  authority 
in  the  Church  to  depose  and  degrade  them.  But  as  this  is  next  to  a  con- 
tradiction in  itself,  that  a  man  should  be  deposed  from  his  order  and  yet 
retain  his  order  still,  with  all  the  spiritual  power  belonging  to  it ;  so  it  im- 
plies such  a  notion  of  that  which  is  commonly  called  the  indelible  character 
of  ordination,  as  no  ancient  writer  ever  thought  of.  For  the  notion  that  the 
ancients  had  of  the  indelible  character  of  ordination,  icas  no  more  than  they  had 
of  the  indelible  character  of  baptism;  that  as  the  outward  form  of  baptism, 
washing  or  immersion  in  water,  though  but  a  transient  act,  served  forever 
to  distinguish  a  Christian  from  a  mere  heathen  or  Jew;  so  as  that,  though 
he  apostatized  from  the  Christian  faith  into  Judaism  or  Gentilism,  he  should 
still  retain  so  much  of  the  Christian  character,  as,  upon  his  conversion  and 
return  to  the  faith,  not  to  need  a  second  baptism  ;  in  like  manner  the  out- 
ward form  of  ordination,  which  is  imposition  of  hands  designing  a  man  to 
any  clerical  office,  though  it  be  but  a  transient  act,  was  sufficient  to  distin- 
guish such  an  one  from  a  mere  layman,  who  never  had  any  such  ceremony 
of  Ordination  ;  so  that  by  this  mark  or  character  of  his  office  once  received, 
though  ho  should  afterward  forfeit  his  office  and  all  the  power  and  honor 
belonging  to  it,  he  would  always  remain  distinguished  in  some  measure  from 


61 


those  who  never  had  such  an  office;  and  though  he  should  be  wholly  divested 
of  his  office  and  power,  and  reduced  to  the  simple  capacity  and  condition  of 
a  layman,  yet  so  much  of  the  marks  and  footsteps  of  his  former  office  would 
remain  upon  him,  as  that  if  he  should  be  recalled  again  to  his  office,  though 
he  might  need  a  new  commission,  he  would  not  need  this  outward  character  or 
ceremony  of  a  new  ordination.  There  is  no  one  [who]  has  explained  or  illus- 
trated the  sense  of  the  ancients  upon  this  point  with  more  accuracy  than  the 
learned  Dr.  Forbes:  and  therefore,  for  farther  confirmation,  I  shall  here 
transcribe  his  words:  'There  remains  (says  he)  some  distinguishing  cha- 
racter in  a  man  that  is  deposed,  by  which  he  is  distinguished  from  other 
laymen  ;  but  to  make  this  distinction,  it  is  not  necessary  there  should  ha  any 
form  impressed,  but  a  transient  act,  that  is  long  ago  past,  is  sufficient,  viz., 
that  he  was  once  a  person  ordained.  The  character  that  remains  in  a  de- 
posed person,  is  not  the  character  of  any  present  office  or  power,  but  only  some 
footstep  or  mark  of  an  honor  that  is  past,  and  of  a  power  that  he  once  had  ; 
by  which  footstep  he  is  distinguished  from  other  laymen,  who  never  were 
ordained;  and  may,  after  a  sufficient  penance  performed,  if  he  be  found  fit, 
and  the  advantage  of  the  Church  so  require,  be  restored  again  without  a 
new  Ordination.'"  (Antiq.  bk.  xvii.  e.  2,  \\  3-5.  Works,  vol.  6,  pp.  350-3.3-1, 
ed.  1844.) 

It  is  unnecessary  to  say,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Canons  of 
the  French  Church  opposed  to  this,  and  that  it  leaves  the  doctrine 
which  the  Bishop  seems  desirous  of  inculcating  entirely  destitute 
of  foundation. 

— One  word  in  conclusion.  If  this  matter  were  a  mere  theoretical 
question,  or  one  of  little  practical  import,  I  should  not  have 
thought  it  worth  the  space  I  have  here  devoted  to  it.  But  it  is 
not  so.  The  circumstances  of  the  times  demand  more  than  ever 
the  cordial  intercommunion  and  mutual  good- will  of  all  who  hold 
the  true  faith.  Romanism  is  making  a  last  effort  to  regain  her 
lost  dominion  and  reassume  her  empire  over  the  nations  of  the 
earth.  Her  emissaries  are  everywhere,  especially  in  the  strong- 
holds of  Protestantism  ;  spreading  around  us  those  corrupt  prin- 
ciples by  which  she  hopes  to  ensnare  the  unwary,  and  gradually 
draw  them  into  her  toils.  Infidelity,  as  ever,  is  making;  the  best  use 
of  the  dissensions  prevailing  among  the  followers  of  Christ  to  cast 
reproach  upon  the  Christian  faith.    How  are  these  foes  to  be  met? 

We  have  been  recently  told,  and  told  even  from  a  quarter  where 
such  language  is  all  but  incomprehensible — our  own  Episcopal 
Bench — that  the  latter  especially  is  to  be  met,  and  can  only  be 
successfully  met,  by  urging  upon  our  people  the  "authority  of  our 
Church,'"  and  that  the  Episcopal  Church,  throughout  Christendom, 
is  so  completely  the  exclusive  channel  of  all  Divine  grace  to  men, 
that  all  we  can  hope  for  other  communions  is,  that  it  "  may  over- 
flow its  channels  for  their  benefit."*  To  show  the  total  opposition 
of  such  sentiments  to  the  principles  of  our  Reformers,  would  be  a 
work  of  supererogation  ;  nor  is  this  the  place  for  it.  But  I  point 
attention  to  these  statements  as  showing  how  deeply  the  poison 
has  entered  into  the  very  soul  of  our  Church,  and  is  rankling  in 
her  heart's  core. 

Theseare  the  principlesfrom  which  Popery  took  its  rise.  Thesub- 
stitution  of  the  authority  of  the  Church  for  the  supremacy  of  Holy 
Scripture  is  the  foundation-stone  of  Popery.    Take  it  away,  and 

^^^^^*^3eethe  Bishop  of  Oxford's  recent  Charge,  pp.  38-42,  and  81,  et  seq. 


62 


the  whole  system  crumbles  to  atoms.  The  authority  of  the  Church 
is  another  phrase  for  the  authority  of  the  Apostolically-descended 
priesthood.  The  supremacy  of  this  priesthood  involves  the  com- 
mittal into  their  hands  of  the  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture  and 
unlimited  power  over  the  consciences  of  mankind.  And  thus  there 
arises  a  vast  body  of  men,  endowed  since  the  fourth  century  with 
large  possessions,  to  whose  care  religion  is  intrusted,  upon  whom 
mankind  are  to  depend  for  a  knowledge  of  the  faith,  and  whose 
spiritual  directions  they  are  to  follow  at  the  peril  of  their  salvation. 
Worldly-minded  and  ambitious  men  crowd  into  it  to  partake  of  its 
wealth  and  honors.  Satan's  emissaries  make  their  way  into  its 
ranks  in  order  to  corrupt  the  true  faith.  Will  "  the  grace  of  the 
Apostolical  succession"  keep  such  men  out?  or  convert  them  when 
in  ?  Facts  prove  the  contrary.  What  reason  have  we  to  expect 
that  even  the  majority  of  such  a  priesthood  will  remain  true  to 
the  pure  faith  of  Christ  ?  None.  Much  for  a  contrary  expecta- 
tion. And  if  they  do  not,  what  becomes  of  the  faith  of  Christ  ? 
It  is  distorted  by  perverse  interpretations  of  Holy  Writ,  overlaid 
with  errors,  and  immersed  in  an  ocean  of  corrupt  rites  and  prac- 
tices. The  power  of  the  priest  being  the  corner-stone  on  which 
the  system  rests,  the  main  object  is  to  provide  for  its  support. 
He  becomes,  therefore,  all  in  all.  He  converts  the  feast  of  the 
commemoration  of  Christ's  sacrifice  into  a  real  sacrifice,  in  which 
he  is  exhibited  as  possessing  a  superhuman  power  of  changing  the 
bread  and  wine  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  then 
offering  them  up  again  to  the  Father  as  the  sinner's  advocate.  He 
claims  a  power  even  in  the  other  world,  of  releasing  from  the 
pains  of  hell  the  soul  of  the  sinner.  He  secures  the  salvation  of 
all  who  will  obey  his  directions.  He  is  not,  he  will  confess,  divine; 
but  divine  power  has  been  confided  to  him. 

And  how  does  the  world  receive  all  this  ?  The  priesthood  find 
a  large  proportion  of  mankind  prepared  to  admit  every  superstition 
and  every  perversion  of  the  true  faith,  everything,  in  short,  but  real 
religion ;  the  willing  captives  of  a  religion  adapted  to  please  the 
senses  of  human  nature.  And  when  universal  dominion  is  thus 
placed  in  their  hands,  what  reason  is  there  to  suppose  they  will 
not  grasp  it  ?  They  might  be  the  envy  of  a  Ctesar  or  an  Alexander. 
For  their  prize  is  unbounded  empire  over  the  souls  as  well  as  bodies 
of  mankind.  Who  can  wonder,  that  a  priesthood  thus  gifted  should 
swell  out  into  gigantic  proportions,  and  that  as  its  numbers  and  in- 
fluence increase,  its  corruptions  of  the  true  faith  increase  in  a  pro- 
portionate ratio;  that  its  pretensions  and  its  errors  go  on  multi- 
plying with  its  years,  until  they  reach  the  climax  at  which  the 
measure  of  their  iniquities  is  filled  up,  and  the  Divine  forbearance 
reaches  its  limit !  It  soon  becomes  far  too  potent  for  any  earthly 
power  to  cope  with;  its  roots  arc  spread  throughout  all  lands,  and 
itsbougbs  extend  to  the  ends  of  the  earth;  it  is  a  vast  upas  tree,  under 
whose  poisonous  influence  the  world  must  remain  until  the  hour — and 
it  is  a  promised  hour — when  it  "  shall  be  consumed  with  the  spirit 
of  His  mouth,  and  destroyed  with  the  brightness  of  His  coming." 


63 


authority  of  man  in  the  place  of  that  of  God,  man's  teaching  in 
the  room  of  God's  word.  And  if  ever  this  principle  regains  its 
lost  dominion  in  our  Church,  her  relapse  into  Popery  will  speedily 
follow.  In  fact,  her  allowance  of  such  a  principle  involves  in  itself 
her  self-condemnation  ;  for  her  doctrines  are  held  by  a  very  small 
minority  of  the  apostolically-descended  priesthood. 

How,  then,  are  we  to  meet  the  wiles  of  Popery,  the  assaults  of 
Infidelity?  By  the  united  efforts  of  all  who  "hold  the  Head." 
They  who  hold  the  true  faith,  and  have  been  admitted  by  baptism 
among  the  followers  of  Christ,  and  are  living  as  such,  are  un- 
doubtedly members  of  Ilis  body.  And  ubi  tres,  ibi  ecclesia,  licet 
laid,  said  a  Father  of  the  second  century.  "  AVhere  two  or  three 
are  gathered  together  in  My  name,"  said  our  blessed  Lord,  "  there 
am  I  in  the  midst  of  them  to  bless  them."  And  those  to  whom  He 
is  joined  are  beyond  all  doubt  members  of  His  Church. 

True  ;  He  who  is  the  God  of  order,  and  not  of  confusion,  no 
doubt  looks  with  disapprobation  upon  all  unnecessary  schisms  and 
divisions  in  His  Church,  and  therefore,  doubtless,  there  are  commu- 
nities whom,  though  we  recognize  as  brethren  and  as  partakers  of 
the  Divine  blessing  in  their  labors,  we  believe  to  be  involved  in  the 
sin  of  unnecessarily  dividing  the  Christian  Church,  and  whose  en- 
couragement of  strife  and  disorder  among  the  followers  of  Christ 
we  cannot  aid  in  promoting  ;  and  still  less  give  up  our  own  Apos- 
tolical rule  of  government  for  theirs.  But  we  see  with  thankful- 
ness the  Divine  blessing  resting  upon  their  labors,  we  own  them 
as  brethren,  and  we  say  to  any  objector :  "  Enviest  thou  for  our 
sakes?  Would  God  that  all  the  Lord's  people  were  prophets." 
Nay,  though  circumstances  necessarily  prevent  intercommunion 
in  ministerial  offices,  there  may  still  be  somewhat  of  united  effort 
in  the  cause  of  God.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten,  that  our  Church 
may  have  given,  in  various  ways,  too  much  ground  for  such  seces- 
sions from  her  communion. 

To  the  Protestant  Churches  of  other  lands  no  such  objection 
attaches.  Alas  !  that  the  claims  of  those  Churches  upon  the 
countenance  and  support  of  the  more  favored  Church  of  England 
have  been  so  little  regarded  !  How  different  might  have  been 
their  present  state,  if  our  Church,  true  to  her  first  'principles,  had 
held  fraternal  communion  with  them,  counselling  them  as  a  friend, 
and  throwing  the  shield  of  British  protection  over  them  when  in 
adversity  from  the  enmity  of  the  bitter  foes  by  which  they  have 
been  from  the  first  encompassed.  But  they  have  been  left  almost 
without  a  helping  hand  from  us.  And,  so  far  as  Europe  is  con- 
cerned, our  efforts  for  the  cause  of  the  Reformed  faith,  which 
through  the  power  and  influence  God  has  given  us  might  have 
been  spread  throughout  the  whole  Continent,  have  been  confined 
to  our  own  little  Island  ;  and  even  there  in  so  imperfect  a  manner 
as  to  have  left  a  large  portion  of  our  population  destitute  of  even 
the  ordinary  means  of  grace. 

What  has  been  the  result?  Popery  and  Infidelity  are  lifting 
their  heads,  and  advancing  with  rapid  strides.  The  cause  of  the 
true  Reformed  faith  on  the  Continent  is  at  the  lowest  ebb,  and  <u 


64 


the  last  stage  of  weakness  and  exhaustion.  Popery  already  seems 
to  see  the  reward  of  its  long  and  persevering  and  insidious  labors 
almost  within  its  grasp. 

How,  then,  is  this  state  of  things  to  he  met  ?  If  we  take  the 
advice  of  the  new  school  that  have  risen  up  among  us,  we  are  to 
wrap  ourselves  up  in  the  dignity  of  an  Apostolically-descended 
Episcopate,  and  repudiate  all  intercourse  with  any  but  those  who 
can  advance  the  same  claim  to  the  title  of  a  Church.  That 
is,  we  are  to  cast  off  all  the  Protestant  Bodies  that  have  not 
retained  our  form  of  church  government,  as  having  no  part  or  lot  in 
the  Church  of  Christ,  as  Bodies  not  entitled  to  our  fraternal  regard. 

Is  it  too  much  to  hope,  that  the  earnest  response  of  our  Church 
will  be,  We  have  not  so  learned  Christ !  that  it  will  rise  to  the 
exigencies  of  the  present  crisis,  and,  casting  off  the  trammels  with 
which  the  agents  of  Popery  among  us  would  fain  fetter  its  ener- 
gies, will  make  common  cause  with  all  the  genuine  disciples  of  the 
true  faith;  that  no  Diotrephes  "loving  to  have  the  pre-eminence," 
who  "  doth  not  himself  receive  the  brethren,  and  forbiddeth  them 
that  would,  and  casteth  them  out  of  the  Church,"  will  be  suffered  to 
stand  in  the  way  of  that  true  Catholic  communion  which  ought  to 
exist  among  "  all  those  that  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  since- 
rity." Grave  as  were  the  charges  laid  against  some  of  the  Seven 
Churches  of  Asia  in  the  Apocalyptic  Epistles  to  them,  we  find 
them  still  numbered,  with  all  their  imperfections,  among  the 
Churches  of  Christ.  And  shall  we  suppose,  that  a  diversity  in  the 
form  of  government  adopted  is  a  greater  sin  than  a  corrupt  state 
of  faith  and  practice  ? 

Let  our  Church,  then,  gird  herself  to  the  conflict  by  rallying 
round  her  all  the  adherents  of  the  genuine  Reformed  faith,  and 
plant  her  -standard  with  an  unwavering  hand  on  the  rock  of  God's 
word.  Her  ancient  banner,  the  undivided  supremacy  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  must  be  again  unfurled ;  and  under  it  the  contest 
must  be  waged.  It  may  be  too  late  to  do  much  that  might  have 
been  done  at  former  periods.  But  there  is  still  the  opportuuity 
left  to  make  an  effort  for  the  cause  of  Protestant  truth  in  Europe 
against  the  dangers  by  which  it  is  encompassed. 

Our  country  has  much  to  answer  for  in  the  encouragement, 
direct  and  indirect,  given  hy  her  to  Popery  both  here  and  else- 
where. And  she  is  now  reaping  the  fruits  of  her  suicidal  policy, 
and  beginning  to  feel  the  pressure  of  the  iron  yoke  of  Papal 
tyranny.  May  she  be  wise  in  time  ;  and  learn  the  value  of  that 
Protestant  faith  to  which,  under  God,  she  owes  so  many  blessings! 
May  she  exert  the  influence  which  God  has  given  her,  for  the  pro- 
tection of  that  faith  throughout  the  world  !  The  power  that  is  used 
in  the  cause  of  God  will  receive  a  blessing  that  will  react  upon  her 
own  welfare.  And  above  all,  may  she  jealously  guard  that  sacred 
deposit  of  truth  committed  by  God's  mercy  to  her  own  keeping;  and 
never  suffer  the  blood-bought  inheritance  of  freedom  from  spirit- 
ual slavery,  bequeathed  to  her  by  her  "noble  army  of  martyrs,"  to 
be  snatched  from  her,  either  by  treachery  within,  or  open  aggression 
from  without.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 


DATE  DUE 

